Key Facts
- •Mother (G) applied for permission to relocate with her child (X), who has autism and additional needs, to Australia.
- •Father (H) opposed the relocation.
- •A fact-finding hearing had previously taken place, resulting in findings about the parents' relationship and behaviors.
- •The mother's financial situation and immigration status in the UK were precarious.
- •An independent social worker's report was deemed largely unreliable by the judge.
- •The child's relationship with both parents was a key consideration.
Legal Principles
The child's welfare is the paramount consideration.
Children Act 1989, section 1(3)
Presumption of parental involvement in the child's life unless contrary is shown.
Children Act 1989, section 1(2)(a)
Broad welfare evaluation in relocation cases, considering various factors including parental motivation, impact of refusal, and impact on the child's relationship with the left-behind parent.
Payne (2001), K and K (2011), Re F [2017] 1 FLR 979, Re C [2017] 1 FLR 1052, V v M [2020] EWHC 448 (Fam)
Proportionality of each proposed option, considering Article 8 rights.
Payne (2001), K and K (2011), Re F [2017] 1 FLR 979, Re C [2017] 1 FLR 1052, V v M [2020] EWHC 448 (Fam)
Outcomes
The mother's application to relocate to Australia was granted.
The judge balanced the significant risks to the child's welfare under both options (remaining in the UK or relocating). The mother's precarious financial and immigration situation in the UK, coupled with the child's specific needs and the potential for improved circumstances in Australia, outweighed concerns about the impact on the child's relationship with the father.
Specific contact arrangements were ordered, including father's visits to Australia and mother's visits to the UK, along with cost allocation.
These arrangements aimed to mitigate the impact of relocation on the child's relationship with his father, recognizing the practical difficulties involved.