C (Children)

In a child-relocation application, the welfare analysis must address the effect of the primary carer’s emotional condition on her ability to parent and the resulting impact on the children. It is insufficient merely to record the parent’s distress. The court must confront whether welfare is better advanced by permitting relocation, thereby restoring the carer’s ability to do her best, or by preserving the status quo, including the children’s expressed wishes. Where that analysis arguably has not been undertaken, and oral evidence may illuminate the issue, permission to appeal may be granted and relevant transcripts obtained.

The mother sought permission to appeal an order made by His Honour Judge Mitchell in the Bromley County Court on 15 February 2002, refusing permission for her to relocate to the Republic of Ireland with the children. Her application was lodged four days late, but an extension was granted. The central issue was whether the county court judge had failed to assess the effect of the mother’s isolation and depression on her parenting and the resulting impact on the children, and had therefore failed to compare relocation with continuation of the status quo.

Lord Justice Thorpe gave the only reasoned judgment. The application for permission to appeal was allowed, the late application was extended, and costs were directed to be costs in the appeal. The Court did not determine the merits of the proposed relocation.

1. The mother’s central case was that isolation and depression had impaired her ability to provide the children with the parenting they deserved. The court welfare officer’s evidence recorded both the mother’s concern that her low morale affected the children and the apparent impact of her unhappiness on her parenting.
2. The county court judge had recorded the mother’s emotional difficulties, but had not made findings on the extent to which those difficulties impaired her ability to do her best for the children. Nor had the judge focused on the impact on the children of the primary carer being disabled from doing so. That arguably amounted to a misdirection in the welfare analysis.
3. The crucial welfare question was whether the children’s welfare was better advanced by releasing the mother and restoring her ability to parent effectively, or by guaranteeing continuation of the status quo, which the children expressly wished to maintain.
4. The transcripts of the mother’s and court welfare officer’s oral evidence might shed light on that issue. The mother therefore had to have the opportunity to obtain them for the appeal. The appeal was directed to be heard as soon as practicable, with two judges if a constitution of three was impracticable.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 17 June 2002, the application for permission to appeal was allowed, with an extension of time for the four-day delay. Costs were to be costs in the appeal.
• Bromley County Court: His Honour Judge Mitchell refused the mother’s application for permission to relocate to the Republic of Ireland by order dated 15 February 2002.