E,F and G (Interim Child Arrangements), Re
[2024] EWCA Civ 874
A & I (Children: Appeal: Relocation & Joint Lives-With Orders: Fresh Evidence), Re
16 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1824 (Fam)
High Court
A mom wanted to move away with her kids to escape her abusive ex-husband. The judge said no, ordering shared custody. The appeal court decided the judge didn't properly consider the abuse's impact on the mom and the kids, so they overturned the decision and sent the case back for a new look.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a child arrangements order made by HHJ Cox in the Central Family Court.
- •The order refused the mother's application to relocate with the two children and implemented a shared care arrangement.
- •The case involved admitted domestic abuse by the father against the mother.
- •The mother appealed on six grounds, primarily focusing on the inadequate consideration of the domestic abuse's impact on her mental health and well-being.
- •The mother applied for fresh evidence, which was refused by the judge.
- •The children are of primary school age and attend a private school near their home.
Legal Principles
Principles for admitting fresh evidence on appeal (Ladd v Marshall criteria)
Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489; Hamilton v Al-Fayed [2001] E.M.L.R. 15; Hertfordshire Investments Ltd v Bubb [2000] 1 WLR 2318; Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534; B v P (Access) [1992] 2 FCR 576; Re C (A Minor) (Care: Child’s Wishes) [1993] 1 FLR 832; W (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 59; Re G (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1365; Re E (Children) (Reopening Findings of Fact) [2019] EWCA Civ 1447
Appellate court's approach to reviewing lower court judgments (Re F (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 546; Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360; Fage UK Ltd & Anor v Chobani UK Ltd & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 5)
Re F (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 546; Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360; Fage UK Ltd & Anor v Chobani UK Ltd & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 5
Considering domestic abuse in child arrangements orders (PD12J paragraphs 36-37)
Practice Direction 12J, paragraphs 36-37
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The judge failed to adequately consider the impact of the admitted domestic abuse on the mother's mental health and well-being, and its indirect effect on the children. Insufficient weight was given to the mother's need for emotional and financial independence and family support.
Paragraph 2 of HHJ Cox's order (refusal to relocate) and part of paragraph 3 (shared care arrangements) set aside.
The judge's decision was deemed wrong and unsustainable due to the errors in considering the impact of domestic abuse on the mother and the children.
Case remitted for further directions.
To determine the way forward following the appeal court's decision.