Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

J (A Child) (Relocation), Re

3 June 2024
[2024] EWFC 180 (B)
Family Court
A mum wanted to move her son to the UAE for a new job. The son wanted to go for a short time. The judge said no because moving would upset the son’s happy life here, even though he said he wanted to go. The judge worried that even a short move would make things worse for the son and everyone involved. The son will stay in the UK.

Key Facts

  • Mother applied for permission to remove their child, John, to the UAE.
  • Father opposed the application.
  • John is of primary school age and has a close relationship with both parents.
  • The UAE is not a signatory to the Hague Convention.
  • John expressed a wish to move to the UAE, understanding it as a temporary two-year arrangement.
  • Mother secured a two-year teaching contract in the UAE, with the possibility of renewal.
  • The court considered the child's wishes, needs, and the potential impact of relocation on family relationships.

Legal Principles

The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration.

Children Act 1989, s.1(1)

Delay is prejudicial to a child's welfare.

Children Act 1989

There's a presumption that parental involvement furthers a child's welfare.

Children Act 1989

The court must consider the 'Welfare Checklist' (s.1(3) Children Act 1989).

Children Act 1989, s.1(3)

Relocation cases are fact-specific; welfare evaluation is rooted in the facts.

In the Matter of F (A Child)(International Relocation Cases) [2015] EWCA Civ 882

The court must undertake a comparative analysis of competing proposals.

In the Matter of F (A Child)(International Relocation Cases) [2015] EWCA Civ 882

No order should be made unless it confers a positive benefit on the child.

Children Act 1989

Outcomes

The application for permission to remove John to the UAE was refused.

The court found that the potential benefits of the move were outweighed by the significant disruption and loss to John's relationships and current well-being. The court also determined that a time-limited order would create further complexities and uncertainty. The court found that John’s current arrangements were working well, and the proposed move was driven primarily by the parents’ wishes, not John’s needs.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.