Home Search [2024] EWHC 200 (Fam)
High Court - Family Division Significant

Re B (Children: Relocation)

[2024] EWHC 200 (Fam)
Date 12 April 2024
Court High Court - Family Division
Judge Mr Justice Peel
Views 199

Summary

The Family Division considered an application by a mother to relocate with her children to Australia. The Court applied the welfare checklist and concluded that relocation was in the children's best interests, but imposed strict conditions to preserve the father's relationship.

Headnote

Children - relocation - welfare checklist - Children Act 1989 - international relocation - contact arrangements

Parties

Claimant/Appellant Mother (anonymised)
Defendant/Respondent Father (anonymised)

Full Judgment

JUDGMENT

Mr Justice Peel

1. This is an application by the mother for permission to relocate permanently to Australia with the two children of the family, A (aged 9) and B (aged 7).

2. The father opposes the application and cross-applies for a shared lives with order.

Background

3. The parents married in 2012 and separated in 2021. They have two children: A, born in 2015, and B, born in 2017. Since separation, the children have lived primarily with their mother, with the father having staying contact every other weekend and one midweek evening.

4. The mother wishes to relocate to Melbourne, where her parents and two siblings reside. She has been offered a senior position at a law firm there, which would significantly improve her financial position.

The Law

5. The law in this area is well established. The welfare of the children is the paramount consideration (Children Act 1989, s.1(1)). The court must have regard to the welfare checklist in s.1(3).

6. In relocation cases, the court must conduct a holistic assessment of the child's welfare. There is no legal presumption in favour of or against relocation.

Analysis

7. I have carefully considered all the factors in the welfare checklist. The children are happy and settled, but the mother is their primary carer and her wellbeing is inextricably linked with theirs.

8. The proposal is well-researched and realistic. The mother has identified schools, accommodation, and support networks in Melbourne. The extended family there would provide a strong support system.

9. The loss of regular face-to-face contact with the father is the most significant detriment. However, modern technology enables meaningful remote contact, and generous holiday contact can substantially preserve the father-child relationship.

Conclusion

10. I grant the mother permission to relocate to Australia with the children, subject to conditions including: (i) minimum 8 weeks holiday contact per year in England; (ii) weekly video calls; (iii) the father to be consulted on major decisions.

Legislation Cited

Children Act 1989 ss.1(1), 1(3), 8, 13 Family Procedure Rules 2010

Cases Cited

Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166
K v K [2011] EWCA Civ 793
Re F (Relocation) [2012] EWCA Civ 1364