I (A Child) (Relocation: Australia), Re

I (A Child) (Relocation: Australia), Re

Permission to relocate is granted because the child's welfare is best promoted by relocation to Australia, considering the child's strong and consistent wishes, the practical and emotional benefits of relocation, the applicant's commitment to facilitating contact, and the risk of emotional harm and conflict if relocation is refused. The proposed contact regime post-relocation is realistic and sufficient to maintain the father-child relationship, and the negatives of relocation do not outweigh the positives for the child's welfare.

Parties
Applicant: P; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Relocation Application (child Custody) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Permission granted for relocation to Australia.
Legal Topics
Child Relocation, Child Welfare, Parental Responsibility, Contact Arrangements, Domestic Abuse, International Family Law
Family Law Child Relocation Child Welfare Parental Responsibility Contact Arrangements Domestic Abuse International 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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P

Applicant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Relocation Application (child Custody) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should permission be granted for the applicant mother to relocate with the child to Australia?
  2. 2 What are the appropriate contact arrangements post-relocation or refusal?
  3. 3 Has the applicant obstructed the relationship between the child and respondent?

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to relocate is granted because the child's welfare is best promoted by relocation to Australia, considering the child's strong and consistent wishes, the practical and emotional benefits of relocation, the applicant's commitment to facilitating contact, and the risk of emotional harm and conflict if relocation is refused. The proposed contact regime post-relocation is realistic and sufficient to maintain the father-child relationship, and the negatives of relocation do not outweigh the positives for the child's welfare.

Court Disposition

Permission granted for relocation to Australia.

Orders

  • Lives with order in favour of P.
  • Spending time order in favour of R with regular extended contact periods (Christmas, Easter, summer, and additional trips).