T (A Child), Re

Permission to appeal in a child-relocation case should be refused where the first-instance judge applied the established approach and there is no arguable misdirection or error of law. The substantive decision is primarily a discretionary evaluation of competing welfare considerations, including the relocating parent's reasons and the effect on the child's relationship with the other parent. The appellate court should not interfere merely because it might have struck the balance differently. The permission threshold is rigorous, even where relocation will substantially reduce the quality of contact.

The father sought permission to appeal an order made by HHJ Michael Taylor in the Middlesbrough County Court on 18 January 2002. The order permitted the child's mother to relocate with him from England to the Republic of Ireland and provided for continuing contact, including visits, telephone contact and written contact.

The father argued that the decision failed adequately to protect his frequent and valuable relationship with the child. The Court of Appeal considered whether the judge had misdirected himself or made an error of law, and whether there was any realistic prospect of successfully challenging the discretionary welfare assessment.

1. Permission refused. The application was approximately 14 days out of time, but the delay was not a substantial consideration in the circumstances.
2. Applications for relocation are generally finely balanced. The trial judge must evaluate the competing consequences of the proposed move, including the relocating parent's reasons and plans, the relationship between the child and each parent, and the practical effect on contact.
3. HHJ Taylor had recognised both the strength of the child's relationship with his mother and the value of regular contact with his father. He had also considered the mother's motivation, timing, planning and proposed arrangements for preserving contact.
4. The judge's reasoning disclosed no judicial misdirection or error of law. The decision was an exercise of discretion and fact-finding. The Court of Appeal would not interfere merely because it might have reached a different balance between the father's interest in continuing contact and the mother's desire to return to her family.
5. The judgment noted a possible deficiency in the contact order: it contained no machinery for determining dates if the parents could not agree, despite purporting to reserve jurisdiction to the Middlesbrough County Court. The county court could elaborate the order by adding an appropriate mechanism. The father was also advised that the Central Authority could assist with registration and enforcement of the order in the Republic.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal the order of HHJ Michael Taylor, Middlesbrough County Court, dated 18 January 2002, was refused.