S v Z

In an application to relocate a child abroad, the child’s welfare is paramount. The court must consider all the circumstances, including section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. The application must be genuine and realistic. There is no presumption in favour of the relocating parent. The court must balance the advantages and disadvantages of relocation, the effect on the child’s relationship with the other parent, and the child’s wishes and feelings in light of age and understanding.

The mother applied for permission to take her six-year-old daughter from England to Tanzania, where she would live with her husband and their expected child. The father opposed relocation and proposed that the child remain in Birmingham. The court considered the proposed arrangements, family circumstances, education, contact, and the child’s wishes and feelings. The central issue was whether relocation, with detailed contact arrangements, was in the child’s best interests.

1. The child’s welfare was the paramount consideration. The court considered all the circumstances and the matters listed in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. Each relocation case is fact specific.
2. The court applied the genuine and realistic filters identified by Thorpe LJ in Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA (Civ) 166, [2001] Fam 473. The mother’s application was genuine and based on practical, well-researched proposals.
3. No presumption or automatic primacy favoured the relocating parent. The impact of refusal remained relevant within the overall welfare balance.
4. The effect on the child’s continuing relationship with her father was a cardinal consideration. The proposed regular indirect contact and substantial visits to England were sufficiently credible. The child’s wishes favoured remaining in Birmingham but were not decisive, given her age, understanding and the complexity of the issues.
5. The application was granted in the negotiated terms of the draft order, permitting relocation to Tanzania and providing for shared residence and substantial contact in England.

First-instance decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.