M v B

Relocation applications are determined by applying the child-welfare principle in section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The court must consider all relevant circumstances, including the practical advantages and disadvantages of the proposed move, the applicant’s motivation, the realism of the plans, and the effect on the child’s relationship with the other parent. Relocation should be permitted only where the court is clear that it is in the child’s overall best interests; a marginal balance is insufficient for so significant a decision. The court should also start from the presumption that involvement of both parents in the child’s life will further welfare, even where the prospective statutory provision is not yet in force.

The mother applied for permission to relocate her approximately nine-and-a-half-year-old son from England to Abu Dhabi, where she had secured employment and where the child’s adult half-sister lived. The father opposed the application, principally because he wished the child to visit and maintain connections with his family in Algeria. By the hearing, the parents had resumed frequent contact arrangements, but the evidence showed that the conflict and handovers were causing the child considerable distress. The central issue was whether, having regard to the child’s welfare and the proposed arrangements for education and continuing contact, relocation would better serve his interests than remaining in England.

1. Legal framework. The application fell to be decided under section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The child’s welfare was paramount. The court had to consider all the circumstances and the matters listed in section 1(3). It would begin from the presumption that involvement of both parents furthered the child’s welfare, although section 1(2A) was not yet in force.
2. Motivation and feasibility. A relocation application required consideration of whether it was properly motivated or designed to frustrate contact. The mother’s motivation was genuine and centred on joining her daughter, improving her circumstances and providing the child with a good education. Her plan was researched, realistic and financially viable. The proposed school, employment, accommodation and travel arrangements were sufficiently established.
3. Contact and risk. The effect of relocation on the child’s relationship with his father was pivotal. Less frequent but longer contact could preserve that relationship and, on these facts, might be beneficial because the existing frequent contact and handovers were causing significant emotional harm. The mother’s concerns about the child travelling to Algeria were well founded, given the father’s expressed views, lack of settled ties in England and belief that the child should live with him from the age of 11. The prior order permitting holidays in Algeria did not determine the present application because circumstances had materially changed.
4. Welfare balance and outcome. The advantages of relocation, including daily contact with the child’s sister, improved security and education, outweighed the disadvantages. The court was satisfied that the mother would honour her proposals for regular return visits and would retain her English home as a base. Permission to relocate was granted, conditional upon the undertakings offered by the mother on the Quran, including regular visits to England and restrictions concerning the home.