Key Facts
- •4-year-old JS's mother (SS, German) applied to relocate to Germany, seeking an interim child arrangements order and permission to remove JS from the jurisdiction.
- •The father (JDS, Swedish) cross-applied for unsupervised contact and overnight stays, aiming for a shared care arrangement.
- •The father had previously suffered psychotic episodes, requiring antipsychotic medication.
- •All contact between JS and his father had been supervised by the mother due to concerns about the father's mental health.
- •Cafcass recommended a shared care order with a gradual increase in unsupervised contact.
- •A psychiatric assessment deemed the father in remission, with no contraindication to unsupervised contact, but warned of potential relapse if he experiences significant stress.
- •The court heard evidence from the parties, a psychiatrist, and Cafcass reporters.
Legal Principles
The welfare of the child is paramount.
Children Act 1989, section 1
Presumption of parental involvement unless contrary is shown (Children Act 1989, section 1(2A)).
Children Act 1989, section 1(2A)
Holistic and non-linear comparative evaluation of parental plans in international relocation cases (Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Case) [2017] 1 FLR 979; Re C (Relocation: Appeal) [2019] EWHC 131 (Fam)).
Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Case) [2017] 1 FLR 979; Re C (Relocation: Appeal) [2019] EWHC 131 (Fam)
Child's right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents (Article 9, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989).
Article 9, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989
Balancing of Article 8 ECHR rights of all parties involved.
Article 8, European Convention on Human Rights
Outcomes
Mother's application to relocate to Germany refused.
The court prioritized JS's relationship with his father, finding that the benefits of remaining in the UK, particularly maintaining a close relationship with both parents, outweighed the mother's concerns.
Unsupervised contact, then overnight stays, and ultimately shared care to be implemented between the father and JS.
The father's mental health was deemed stable enough for unsupervised contact; the court emphasized the importance of a close relationship with both parents and the need for the relationship with the father to be developed.