AR (A Child: Relocation), Re

In an international relocation application, the child’s welfare remains the paramount consideration. The court must apply the statutory welfare checklist and the guidance in Payne v Payne, while avoiding any automatic presumption in favour of relocation. The primary carer’s emotional response to refusal is relevant, but it must receive appropriate weight within the overall welfare assessment. The court should evaluate the competing arrangements comparatively, including the effect of relocation on the child’s meaningful relationship with the left-behind parent and the practical adequacy of the relocation proposals. A shared residence order may be appropriate even where care is unequal and relocation is refused or permitted.

The case concerned a five-year-old child, A, whose English father sought residence and whose French mother sought permission to relocate him permanently from England to Troyes. The mother had previously obtained permission from a district judge and had taken A to France, but returned to England after further proceedings. The father subsequently obtained temporary protective orders and a revised contact arrangement, under which he cared for A for about 40 per cent of the year.

The issues were whether A should reside principally with the father, whether the parents should have a shared residence order, and whether A’s welfare required relocation to France in light of the competing care arrangements, the mother’s plans, and the effect on A’s relationship with his father.

1. Relocation application refused. The court rejected the father’s application for sole residence, but made a joint or shared residence order. The mother remained A’s primary carer, and altering that arrangement would cause substantial upset and confusion.
2. The court was bound by Payne v Payne. The welfare of the child was paramount, and the court applied the guidance requiring assessment of the genuineness and realism of the relocation proposals, the motivation and likely detriment involved in the opposition, the effect of refusal on the relocating parent, and the statutory welfare checklist. The court considered that the result would be the same under a neutral, non-presumptive approach.
3. The mother’s proposals were not malevolent, but lacked sufficient precision concerning employment, day-to-day care and education in France. Her conduct also demonstrated continuing attachment to England. The father’s opposition was genuine. Relocation would substantially diminish the quantum, periodicity, quality and intimacy of his relationship with A.
4. A’s physical and educational needs could be met in either country. His strong emotional need for meaningful participation by both parents in his upbringing, and the likely damage to his relationship with his father, weighed decisively against relocation. The mother was likely to cope responsibly with refusal and to co-parent in England.
5. A shared residence order was appropriate. Such orders were described as the norm rather than the exception, even where care was unequal, because they avoid the psychological baggage associated with sole residence. The court also observed that residence and relocation applications should, where possible, be considered together by comparing the available arrangements.
6. The court lacked sufficient material to decide the competing school applications. The parents were directed to file further statements if agreement could not be reached.

The judgment records earlier proceedings in the same litigation. In August 2008, a district judge granted the mother permission to relocate. In July and August 2009, further proceedings resulted in temporary orders preventing removal, acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction, and a revised contact arrangement. The present court reconsidered the relocation issue on the mother’s renewed application.