D (A Child), Re

D (A Child), Re

The court found that D's welfare needs for security with her primary carer and protection from a significant change of circumstance were best met by permitting her to live with her mother in Israel. The risk of D losing her relationship with the non-primary carer existed in either scenario, but was greater if placed...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: OY; Respondent: AY
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Family / Final Hearing on Application for Leave to Remove Child From Jurisdiction (s.13 Children Act 1989) and Child Arrangements Order (s.8 Children Act 1989)
Outcome
Mother's application for leave to remove the child to Israel granted; decision on child arrangements order deferred.
Legal Topics
International Relocation of Children, Child Arrangements Orders, Welfare of the Child, Parental Responsibility, Immigration Status and Child Welfare
Family Law Child Law International Relocation of Children Child Arrangements Orders Welfare of the Child Parental Responsibility Immigration Status and Child Welfare

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OY

Applicant

AY

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Final Hearing on Application for Leave to Remove Child From Jurisdiction (s.13 Children Act 1989) and Child Arrangements Order (s.8 Children Act 1989)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mother should be granted leave to remove the child permanently from the jurisdiction to Israel under s.13 Children Act 1989
  2. 2 Which parent should be the primary carer under a child arrangements order under s.8 Children Act 1989
  3. 3 Assessment of risk of harm to the child if placed with either parent

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that D's welfare needs for security with her primary carer and protection from a significant change of circumstance were best met by permitting her to live with her mother in Israel. The risk of D losing her relationship with the non-primary carer existed in either scenario, but was greater if placed with the father due to the paternal family's disapproval and risk of marginalisation of the mother. The mother's lack of a detailed plan for Israel was not fatal given her return to a familiar environment. The move was proportionate and consistent with D's welfare.

Court Disposition

Mother's application for leave to remove the child to Israel granted; decision on child arrangements order deferred.

Orders

  • Permission granted to the mother to remove D permanently from the jurisdiction to Israel pursuant to s.13 Children Act 1989.
  • Child arrangements order applications under s.8 Children Act 1989 to be determined at a later date.