NJ v OV

In an international relocation case, the child’s welfare is paramount. There is no presumption favouring relocation by a primary carer. Court of Appeal guidance remains valuable, but must not be applied rigidly. The court must evaluate the evidence and make a value judgment about the child’s best interests. The relocating parent’s circumstances are relevant, but welfare remains decisive. Relocation may be granted where the child’s welfare is better served by living with the primary carer in a more stable and fulfilling environment, despite reduced day-to-day contact with the other parent.

The mother sought permission to relocate the parties’ nearly five-year-old daughter permanently from England to Sweden, with consequential changes to the father’s contact. The father opposed relocation and sought an equal shared-care arrangement. The dispute followed the child’s return to England after the mother’s wrongful retention of her in Sweden, and subsequent litigation concerning contact, allegations of neglect, child-protection measures, the mother’s alcohol misuse, housing insecurity and the parents’ ability to co-parent.

The central issue was whether the child’s welfare was better served by remaining in England or relocating with the mother to Sweden, and, if relocation were permitted, what contact arrangements should be made for the father.

1. Relocation principles. The application was granted. The child’s welfare was paramount. The judge rejected any presumption in favour of a primary-carer relocation and treated the decision as an evaluation of evidence followed by a value judgment.
2. The guidance derived from Poel v Poel, [1970] 1 WLR 1469; Payne v Payne, [2001] Fam 473; K v K, [2012] Fam 134; and Re F, [2012] EWCA Civ 1364, remained useful. It was not a rigid framework. The relevant questions were aids to determining the single question of welfare.
3. The mother’s proposals in Sweden offered suitable accommodation, employment, family support and greater stability. Her position in England was uncertain and bleak. The child therefore had a better prospect of a healthy and safe life in Sweden, with her dual heritage better promoted there.
4. The relocation would compromise the father’s relationship with the child, but that consequence did not outweigh the welfare evaluation. The order provided for the child to live with the mother in Sweden, half of the school holidays and two of three half-terms with the father in London, two term-time weekends in Sweden each term, and twice-weekly Skype contact.
5. The order was framed for recognition and enforcement in Sweden under Article 23 of Brussels II Revised and Article 23 of the 1996 Hague Convention. It was variable by a Swedish court if circumstances changed and the child’s best interests required variation. Serious unjustified non-compliance could justify consideration of a transfer of residence to the father.