D v T [2023] EWFC 286 (B) (11 December 2023)

D v T [2023] EWFC 286 (B) (11 December 2023)

The judge at first instance undertook a thorough and lawful welfare analysis, was entitled to depart from CAFCASS recommendations with cogent reasons, and properly considered all relevant factors including Article 8 rights; none of the grounds of appeal demonstrated that the decision was wrong or unjust due to procedural or other irregularity; permission to appeal is refused.

Citation
[2023] EWFC 286 (B)
Parties
Applicant: Father; Respondent: Mother
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Private Law Children Proceedings (relocation) / Application for Permission to Appeal (first Instance Decision)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Child Relocation, Welfare Checklist, Appeals, Article 8 ECHR, CAFCASS Recommendations
Family Law Child Relocation Welfare Checklist Appeals Article 8 ECHR CAFCASS Recommendations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Applicant

Mother

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Private Law Children Proceedings (relocation) / Application for Permission to Appeal (first Instance Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in departing from CAFCASS recommendations
  2. 2 Whether the judge's welfare analysis was flawed or plainly wrong
  3. 3 Whether the proportionality of interference with Article 8 rights was properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance undertook a thorough and lawful welfare analysis, was entitled to depart from CAFCASS recommendations with cogent reasons, and properly considered all relevant factors including Article 8 rights; none of the grounds of appeal demonstrated that the decision was wrong or unjust due to procedural or other irregularity; permission to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Stay of relocation continued for 7 days to allow for oral hearing application.