X v Y [2025] EWFC 243 (B) (10 July 2025)

X v Y [2025] EWFC 243 (B) (10 July 2025)

The court found that both children expressed clear wishes to spend more time with their father and remain in London. The ISW's recommendations supported a modest increase in time with the father and opposed relocation. The court determined that the father's proposed London-based schools best met the children's educational and welfare needs, particularly for S's SEN requirements. The mother's shifting positions undermined her opposition to increased shared care. The welfare checklist supported a joint 'lives with' order, equal division of holidays, and a 7/7 shared care model.

Citation
[2025] EWFC 243 (B)
Parties
Applicant: X; Respondent: Y
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Children Act 1989 Proceedings (specific Issue Order, Cross Application for Child Arrangements) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Mother's application for internal relocation refused; joint 'lives with' order granted; increased time with father ordered; school choices determined in favour of father's proposals.
Legal Topics
Internal Relocation, Specific Issue Order, Child Arrangements Order, Shared Care, School Choice, Welfare Checklist
Family Law Children Law Internal Relocation Specific Issue Order Child Arrangements Order Shared Care School Choice Welfare Checklist

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Applicant

Y

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Children Act 1989 Proceedings (specific Issue Order, Cross Application for Child Arrangements) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to permit internal relocation of children with the mother
  2. 2 Whether to increase the children's time with their father to a 7/7 shared care model
  3. 3 Which schools the children should attend

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both children expressed clear wishes to spend more time with their father and remain in London. The ISW's recommendations supported a modest increase in time with the father and opposed relocation. The court determined that the father's proposed London-based schools best met the children's educational and welfare needs, particularly for S's SEN requirements. The mother's shifting positions undermined her opposition to increased shared care. The welfare checklist supported a joint 'lives with' order, equal division of holidays, and a 7/7 shared care model.

Court Disposition

Mother's application for internal relocation refused; joint 'lives with' order granted; increased time with father ordered; school choices determined in favour of father's proposals.

Orders

  • Children to live with both parents under a joint 'lives with' order.
  • Children to remain at current school until Year 9, then transition to father's proposed schools (School F for R, or School K if available, or School H; School G for S, or School J).