R v R

In an application for permission to relocate children abroad, the children’s welfare remains the paramount consideration. There is no presumption that a reasonable proposal by the primary carer must be granted. The court must assess whether the application is genuine and practical, examine the other parent’s opposition, consider the effect of refusal on the primary carer, and conduct an overall welfare evaluation under Children Act 1989, section 1(3).

Reasonable proposals must be carefully researched and implemented. Stability, emotional resilience, the quality of proposed support, the practical effect on contact, and the children’s relationships with both families are relevant. The application was refused because the proposed move was insufficiently planned and inconsistent with the children’s need for stability and regular contact with both parents.

The applicant mother sought a residence order and permission to remove the parties’ two young children permanently from England and Wales to Paris. The respondent father opposed the move, sought no order as to residence or alternatively joint residence, and contended that the relocation would disrupt the children’s relationship with him and expose them to instability.

The court considered the mother’s proposed support network, arrangements for housing and schooling, her emotional health, the father’s opposition, the proposed contact arrangements, and the consequences of a change in habitual residence and jurisdiction. The central issue was whether relocation to Paris would best promote the children’s welfare.

1. Welfare paramount. The children’s welfare was the paramount consideration. The court applied the welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989.
2. No presumption in favour of relocation. The guidance in Poel v Poel [1970] 1 WLR 1469, A v A 1980 1 FLR 380, and Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166 was considered. A proposal by a primary carer is not granted merely because it is reasonable from that parent’s perspective. The court must decide the case by reference to the individual children’s welfare.
3. Genuine and practical proposal. The application must be genuine and not motivated by an inappropriate desire to exclude the other parent. It must also be practical, supported by properly researched arrangements. If those minimum requirements are met, the court must evaluate the competing welfare consequences rather than apply a category-based rule.
4. Balancing exercise. The court must weigh the likely effect of refusal on the primary carer and children against the effect of relocation on the children’s stability, contact with the other parent, relationships with both extended families, and the feasibility of maintaining meaningful contact. The guidance in Re C and the other authorities did not displace that fact-sensitive evaluation.
5. Application. The mother’s wish to move was genuine, but her plans were inadequately developed. Her emotional difficulties, history of responding to perceived entrapment by leaving, uncertain support network, failure to secure nursery places, and the likely loss of mid-week and ordinary home-based contact with the father meant that relocation would not promote the children’s welfare. The application for permission to remove was therefore refused.
6. The mother was granted a residence order. Existing contact was continued, subject to weekend contact ending on Monday morning from January 2005, with the father taking A to nursery and returning C to the mother or nursery.

First instance decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.