K (A Child), Re

K (A Child), Re

The child's welfare is best served by remaining in the care of his mother in England, where his complex needs are being met, he has continuity of care, and the risks of further disruption and litigation are minimised. The father's proposal for relocation to India is not viable in the short to medium term due to the lack of a realistic transition plan, the risk of harm from separation from the mother and maternal grandmother, and the risk of renewed litigation in India. Contact with the father should be phased and incremental, with safeguards to prevent removal to India until all litigation there has ceased and a mirror order is in place.

Parties
Applicant: V; 1st Respondent: M; 2nd Respondent: K (by his Children's Guardian Lynn Magson)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Child Arrangements / International Relocation / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Child to live with the mother in England; phased contact with the father; prohibition on travel to India until safeguards are in place.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements, International Relocation, Habitual Residence, Welfare of the Child, Parental Responsibility, Contact Orders, Prohibited Steps Orders
Family Law Private International Law Child Arrangements International Relocation Habitual Residence Welfare of the Child Parental Responsibility Contact Orders +1 more

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

Parties

V

Applicant

M

1st Respondent

K (by his Children's Guardian Lynn Magson)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Arrangements / International Relocation / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the child reside with the mother in England or the father in India?
  2. 2 What contact arrangements are in the child's best interests?
  3. 3 What are the risks of further litigation in India affecting the child's welfare?

Ratio Decidendi

The child's welfare is best served by remaining in the care of his mother in England, where his complex needs are being met, he has continuity of care, and the risks of further disruption and litigation are minimised. The father's proposal for relocation to India is not viable in the short to medium term due to the lack of a realistic transition plan, the risk of harm from separation from the mother and maternal grandmother, and the risk of renewed litigation in India. Contact with the father should be phased and incremental, with safeguards to prevent removal to India until all litigation there has ceased and a mirror order is in place.

Court Disposition

Child to live with the mother in England; phased contact with the father; prohibition on travel to India until safeguards are in place.

Orders

  • The child will live with the mother.
  • The child will spend time with the father in England and, in due course, in India, on a phased incremental plan to be agreed.