Ms D v Mr D [2022] EWFC 164 (B) (03 September 2022)

Ms D v Mr D [2022] EWFC 164 (B) (03 September 2022)

Relocation to Somerset is refused because the risk of emotional harm to the children from the likely marginalisation of their relationship with their father outweighs the benefits of relocation. The boys' best interests are served by continuing the shared care arrangement in London, as the mother is not capable of prioritising and supporting the father-child relationship if relocation were permitted. The welfare checklist supports maintaining the status quo with refinements to reduce confusion and travel fatigue.

Citation
[2022] EWFC 164 (B)
Parties
Applicant: Ms D; Respondent: Mr D
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Children Act 1989 Private Law Proceedings (child Arrangements and Relocation) / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application for internal relocation refused; shared care arrangement in London continued.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements Order, Prohibited Steps Order, Specific Issue Order, Internal Relocation, Welfare Checklist, Shared Care, Parental Responsibility
Family Law Child Arrangements Order Prohibited Steps Order Specific Issue Order Internal Relocation Welfare Checklist Shared Care Parental Responsibility

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms D

Applicant

Mr D

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Children Act 1989 Private Law Proceedings (child Arrangements and Relocation) / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to permit internal relocation of children with mother to Somerset
  2. 2 Whether to vary existing shared care arrangements
  3. 3 Assessment of best interests of the children under the welfare checklist

Ratio Decidendi

Relocation to Somerset is refused because the risk of emotional harm to the children from the likely marginalisation of their relationship with their father outweighs the benefits of relocation. The boys' best interests are served by continuing the shared care arrangement in London, as the mother is not capable of prioritising and supporting the father-child relationship if relocation were permitted. The welfare checklist supports maintaining the status quo with refinements to reduce confusion and travel fatigue.

Court Disposition

Application for internal relocation refused; shared care arrangement in London continued.

Orders

  • A and B to continue shared care, residing alternate weeks with each parent in London.
  • Ms D's application for relocation to Somerset refused.