Here you will find recent cases and developments about international relocation/leave to remove children, which we hope will be of interest to you.
This blog is intended for general information only and should not be considered as giving advice in relation to any individual case nor be taken as applying to any particular case. No liability is accepted for any such use of the information contained.
In a case concerning an agreement between unmarried parents and how it could impact a future international relocation of the mother with her child, a judge ruled that a provision prohibiting the child’s relocation was irreconcilable with the child’s best interests. He therefore disapplied the principle established in Xydhias and amended the wording of the proposed draft order.
This case involved a financial application brought by a mother, under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, which had been settled at a roundtable meeting attended by the parents and their very experienced lawyers, resulting in signed Heads of Agreement (“HoA”).
Mother granted leave to relocate her two children (aged 6 and 3) to Utah USA, in the face of opposition from the children’s father and the recommendation of the Children’s Guardian.
This was a decision by a very experienced High Court Judge, Mr Justice Bodey, who also sits in the Court of Appeal. His decision is a classic exposition of the “modern” law on relocation (welfare plus proportionality) as set out in recent cases, which also includes reference to the Payne guidance.
In November 2016, a report ranked 22 countries in order, from those most likely to allow international child relocation to those least likely to allow it.
The data demonstrated that, unsurprisingly, countries which have large international workforces experience the highest number of international child relocation/leave to remove cases.
Unsuccessful appeal by father to the Court of Appeal against first instance decision giving permission to his former wife to relocate to Moscow with the couple's two daughters: the case re-emphasises the paramountcy of the welfare principle in relocation cases and the difficulty of overturning a first instance decision on appeal.