Key Facts
- •12-year-old Amelia's mother seeks relocation to Northern Europe.
- •Father opposes relocation, desiring Amelia remain in the UK.
- •Amelia expresses a wish to stay in London due to her established life, friends, and half-sister.
- •The mother cites financial difficulties and better support networks in Northern Europe as reasons for relocation.
- •A Cafcass officer's report highlights Amelia's wishes but also notes the potential benefits of relocation for both mother and child.
Legal Principles
Child's welfare is paramount.
Children Act 1989, s.1(3)
Intervention must be necessary and proportionate (ECHR).
European Convention on Human Rights
Child's rights prevail in conflict with parents' rights.
Relocation applications under s.13 Children Act 1989; principles analogous to s.8.
Re C (Internal Relocation) [2015] EWCA Civ 1305
Holistic welfare evaluation considering all factors; relocation dispute not resolved separately from time division disputes.
L v F [2017] EWCA Civ 2121; P v P [2001] EWCA Civ 166
Composite checklist for international relocation (Wishes and feelings; physical, emotional, educational needs; effect of change; child's characteristics; harm; parents' capabilities; available court powers).
V v M (Child Arrangements Order: International Relocation) [2020] EWHC 488 (Fam)
Outcomes
Mother granted permission to relocate to Northern Europe with Amelia.
Overall welfare analysis favors relocation despite Amelia's wishes; benefits of stability for mother and improved support network outweigh potential disruption for Amelia.
Detailed contact order established between Amelia and her father.
To mitigate disruption and maintain strong father-daughter bond.