M & Anor (Children) (Permanent Relocation), Re
[2023] EWFC 145 (B)
T and B (Relocation and Schooling), Re
3 July 2024
[2024] EWFC 169 (B)
Family Court
A mom wanted to move with her toddlers to a new town and schools. Dad disagreed, but the judge said the move was good for the kids because of the better home and schools. Dad also had to pay half the costs of previous supervised visits with the children.
Key Facts
- •Mother (M) seeks to relocate 28 miles with two children (aged 3 and 2) from East Grinstead to Esher and enroll them in schools there.
- •Father (F), a litigant in person, opposes the relocation but offered no alternative.
- •A dispute exists regarding the cost of prior supervised contact, with M claiming F should pay half.
- •The case involves allegations of domestic abuse between the parents, scheduled for a Fact-Finding Hearing (FFH).
- •F's witness statement was disorganized and lacked clarity, while M's was well-structured and detailed.
- •The judge prohibited F from cross-examining M due to domestic abuse allegations.
Legal Principles
The court's primary consideration is the children's welfare, guided by the Welfare Checklist in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989.
Children Act 1989
There is no special test for relocation within the same jurisdiction.
Case Law (implied)
Outcomes
The mother's application to relocate to Esher with the children is granted.
The judge considered all aspects of the Welfare Checklist and found that the move was in the children's best interests, given the positive aspects of the new home, schools and improved commuting.
Father is ordered to pay £553, half the cost of prior supervised contact.
The court found no compelling evidence to deviate from equal cost-sharing, as there was no agreement stating otherwise.