F & H (Children)

In an international child-relocation application, the practicalities required of the relocating parent are fact-sensitive. The evidential threshold is lower where the primary carer is returning with the children to a familiar home environment after a short absence, and higher where the proposed destination is unknown or untried. The judge must evaluate the children’s welfare in the round, including the likely effect of refusal on the primary carer and the consequences for contact, travel and cost. An appellate court should not interfere with a first-instance welfare decision merely because it might have evaluated the evidence differently. Intervention requires a material misdirection or a conclusion that was plainly wrong or not open to the judge.

The mother applied to move from England to Texas with two children, one of whom was not the biological child of the father. The High Court, before Hogg J, granted permission to relocate after considering the mother’s plans, the effect of refusal on her wellbeing, and the impact on the children’s relationship with their father and grandparents. The father appealed, challenging the adequacy of the practical arrangements and the finding that refusal would seriously affect the mother. The central issue was whether the judge had misdirected herself or reached a conclusion outside her broad welfare discretion.

Disposition

Thorpe LJ delivered the judgment, with Arden LJ and Hedley J agreeing. Permission to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

1. Practical arrangements. The degree of detail and evidential support required from a parent seeking international relocation depends on the facts and circumstances. The threshold is lower where the primary carer is returning to a familiar home environment after a brief absence. It is higher where the proposed destination is unknown or untried.
2. The judge was entitled to regard the mother’s proposals as reasonable despite the absence of final details about schooling, accommodation and employment. She had time before the proposed move to complete those arrangements. The judge was entitled to rely on her knowledge of the family and the CAFCASS officer’s assessment.
3. Welfare assessment. The effect of refusing relocation on the primary carer may be relevant because an unhappy primary carer may adversely affect the children. That consideration must be balanced against the distance between the proposed homes, travel and its cost, and the loss of regular contact with the other parent and grandparents.
4. Appellate restraint. The first-instance judge had extensive knowledge of the family, having heard substantial evidence in earlier and current proceedings. She was exercising a broad discretion. There was no material misdirection, and her conclusion was open to her. The Court of Appeal therefore had no basis to interfere.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Permission to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
• High Court, Family Division — Hogg J granted the mother permission to relocate to Texas with the children on 25 April 2007.