S (Children) , RE

S (Children) , RE

The trial judge erred by treating the siblings as a unit and subordinating the welfare interests of the younger child, C, to those of the older child, B. The judge failed to conduct a separate and sufficient analysis of C's individual welfare needs, particularly given the absence of compelling reasons for relocation and the satisfactory status quo. The appellate court found that C's best interests required maintaining the status quo, and the permission to remove him from the jurisdiction should be set aside.

Parties
Appellant: L. S. A.; Respondent: R. B. S.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (children Relocation) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Child Relocation, Welfare of the Child, Residence Orders, Parental Responsibility, Appeals in Family Law
Family Law Child Relocation Welfare of the Child Residence Orders Parental Responsibility Appeals in Family Law

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L. S. A.

Appellant

R. B. S.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (children Relocation) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in treating two siblings as a unit rather than considering their individual welfare needs in a relocation application
  2. 2 Whether the judge gave undue weight to the wishes of the older child over the younger child
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to properly apply the welfare checklist under the Children Act 1989

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred by treating the siblings as a unit and subordinating the welfare interests of the younger child, C, to those of the older child, B. The judge failed to conduct a separate and sufficient analysis of C's individual welfare needs, particularly given the absence of compelling reasons for relocation and the satisfactory status quo. The appellate court found that C's best interests required maintaining the status quo, and the permission to remove him from the jurisdiction should be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission for the father to remove C from the jurisdiction is set aside.
  • The interim residence order in favour of the mother is reinstated in respect of C.