K v K

In determining an application to relocate a child abroad, the child’s welfare remains paramount. The court should first assess whether the application is genuine and supported by realistic, well-researched proposals. It should then evaluate the opposing parent’s concerns, the likely effect on that parent-child relationship, the benefits and risks for the child, and the consequences for the relocating parent if permission is refused. There is no presumption in favour of either parent, although reasonable proposals may carry considerable weight. A shared residence order should reflect the practical arrangements for the child. It is generally inappropriate where the child lives with one parent and has only limited supervised contact with the other.

The father sought orders concerning residence, contact and permission to remove the child to Shanghai for three years because of an employment relocation. The mother sought to set aside an earlier contact order, enforce telephone contact and retain shared residence. The court considered the child’s history of living with the father, the mother’s limited supervised contact, expert evidence concerning the effect of contact, and the practical arrangements proposed for Shanghai. The central issues were whether relocation served the child’s welfare, what contact should continue, and whether a shared residence order remained appropriate.

1. Relocation. Applying the approach in Payne v Payne (2001) 1 FLR 1052, the court first asked whether the father’s application was genuine and realistic. It was motivated by employment and career considerations rather than a desire to exclude the mother, and the arrangements for housing, schooling, employment, travel and support in Shanghai were properly researched.
2. The court then assessed the mother’s opposition, the likely detriment to her relationship with the child, the benefits and risks for the child, and the consequences for the father if relocation were refused. There was no presumption in favour of the father. His reasonable proposals nevertheless carried substantial weight. The relocation was for a limited period, the child was expected to return to England, and contact could continue in supervised form. The application was therefore granted, welfare being the paramount consideration.
3. Contact. The child’s best interests required one supervised contact visit before the move, with the possibility of further supervised contact depending on its effect. While in China, the father was directed to make the child available for two supervised contacts each year, subject to adjustment if supervision became unnecessary. Telephone contact was refused because it was presently upsetting for the child.
4. Residence. Having regard to Re: A (Children: Shared Residence) (2002) 1 FCR 177, a residence order should reflect the reality of the child’s arrangements. Exceptional circumstances would be required before a parent having only two or three supervised contacts annually could properly share residence. The shared residence order was replaced by a residence order in favour of the father.
5. The mother’s applications to set aside the earlier contact order and enforce telephone contact were dismissed. The father’s applications for sole residence and permission to remove the child to Shanghai for three years were granted. The mother was given leave to apply.