C v C

In an international relocation application, the child’s welfare remains paramount. A reasonable proposal by the primary carer carries great weight, but it creates no presumption that permission must be granted. The proposal must be genuine and practical. The court must then evaluate comparatively the realistic options for the children, including the likely effects on the primary carer, the children’s stability, and their relationship with the parent left behind. Cross-applications for residence should be considered together where appropriate. The usual guidance in Payne v Payne does not replace the statutory welfare assessment or determine the outcome by reference to a category of case. Permission should be granted only where, on the facts, relocation is likely to promote the children’s welfare.

The mother applied for permission to take the parties’ two boys, aged 11 and 8¾, to live with her in Singapore. The father opposed the move and initially sought defined contact; he later amended his application to seek a residence order. The children had always lived in England, had strong attachments to both parents, and were affected by the breakdown of the marriage and continuing parental conflict. Expert and child-and-family reporter evidence identified competing welfare risks but made no firm recommendation. The central issue was whether relocation with the mother, remaining in England with her, or residence with the father would best promote the children’s short-, medium- and long-term welfare.

1. Applicable approach. The welfare of the children was paramount. The guidance in Payne v Payne required careful scrutiny of the mother’s motivation and proposals, appraisal of the father’s opposition and the likely effects of refusal on the mother, and an overriding welfare assessment. It did not create a presumption in favour of relocation. The reasoning in Poel v Poel did not alter that position.
2. The mother’s proposal was genuine and practical. Genuine meant that it was not motivated by an inappropriate desire to exclude the father. Practical meant that it was founded on researched and investigated arrangements. These were threshold matters, but they did not determine the welfare outcome.
3. The court had to compare the available options rather than decide the case by reference to a class or sub-class of relocation case. Relevant considerations included the effect of refusal on the mother’s emotional and psychological stability, the children’s need for a stable and happy home, the reduction in contact with the father, the children’s ability to adapt to Singapore, their ages and connections with each country, and the prospects of maintaining contact.
4. The best theoretical solution was for the children to remain in England with the mother after substantial changes to the family arrangements. However, that solution had only a reasonable prospect of success if the mother voluntarily agreed to remain. Refusing the application would carry a significant risk that she would return to Singapore without the children, which the judge regarded as the worst outcome for their welfare.
5. On the evidence, the mother was likely to become substantially happier in Singapore and was unlikely deliberately or unconsciously to undermine the boys’ relationship with their father. The likely welfare benefit of a happier and more stable home outweighed the risks associated with reduced contact and the changes involved in relocation.
6. The mother’s application was granted. This was not because relocation was presumed to be compatible with welfare or because it was the usual result, but because relocation was likely, on the particular evidence, to best promote the children’s welfare. The order was made on the basis of the mother’s undertaking to seek a Singapore mirror order incorporating the proposed contact arrangements.