Sophia (A Child) (International Relocation), Re
[2023] EWFC 237 (B)
Final Hearing, Application for relocation to Poland, Re
11 October 2024
[2024] EWFC 283 (B)
Family Court
A mum wanted to move to Poland with her daughter. The dad didn't want her to go. A judge decided it was best for the girl to go with her mum to Poland because they'd have a better life there, even though the dad would see her less often.
Key Facts
- •Final hearing in a private law Children Act 1989 case concerning a 7-year-old child (C).
- •Father (F) sought a Child Arrangements Order for shared care, a Prohibited Steps Order to prevent relocation to Poland, and an Occupation Order (withdrawn).
- •Mother (M) sought a Child Arrangements Order for sole care and permission to relocate with C to Poland.
- •Both parents made allegations of domestic abuse against each other. F was convicted of common assault.
- •C currently lives with M and has regular contact with F.
- •Both parents are experiencing financial difficulties and housing instability.
- •M has a job offer in Poland with familial support.
- •F's evidence regarding conversations with C about relocation was deemed unreliable and inadmissible due to procedural irregularities.
Legal Principles
The welfare of the child is paramount in relocation cases.
Children Act 1989, section 1(3); Payne v Payne [2001] 2 WLR 1826; K v K [2012] 2 WLR 941; Re F [2013] 1 FLR 645; Re TC v JC [2013] 2 FLR 484; C (Internal Relocation) [2015] EWCA Civ 1305; F v M [2016] EWHC 2691
Section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989 creates a presumption that both parents should be involved in a child's upbringing unless the contrary is shown.
Children Act 1989, section 1(2A)
Relocation applications are assessed holistically, balancing all relevant factors and considering the welfare checklist (section 1(3) Children Act 1989).
F v M [2016] EWHC 2691; C (Internal Relocation) [2015] EWCA Civ 1305
Outcomes
Mother's application to relocate to Poland with C granted.
The court considered factors such as M's well-researched relocation plan, financial and familial support in Poland, the precarious housing situation in the UK, and C's resilience. While acknowledging the impact on F, the court prioritized C's overall welfare and long-term stability.
Father's applications for a shared care order and a prohibited steps order were dismissed.
The court deemed a shared care order inappropriate given the strained relationship between the parents. The prohibited steps order was rejected as it would be against C's best interests.
Judgment published with anonymity preserved.
Public interest in transparency balanced with the need to protect the anonymity of the family.