C (Internal Relocation), Re

In both internal and external relocation cases, the paramount consideration is the child’s welfare. There is no separate requirement that an internal move may be prevented only in exceptional circumstances. That expression describes the likely result of a welfare evaluation in many cases; it is not an additional legal test.

The court must undertake a holistic balancing exercise. The welfare checklist assists that exercise, and the considerations identified in relocation authorities may be useful guides, but neither supplies a prescriptive formula. The parents’ wishes, interests and Article 8 rights must be considered as part of the welfare analysis, not through a separate proportionality cross-check.

The mother sought permission to move with C, then aged 10, from London to Cumbria. The father, who had substantial and regular involvement in C’s life, opposed the move and wished the existing London-based arrangements to continue.

Mr Recorder Digney in the Central Family Court permitted the move, directed C’s attendance at a Cumbrian school, and made child-arrangements provision for substantial weekend, holiday and remote contact with the father. Although the CAFCASS officer recommended that C should remain in London, the Recorder found that the move better promoted C’s welfare.

The father appealed. The central issues were the correct legal approach to internal relocation, the relevance of the authorities on international relocation, and whether the Recorder had erred in his welfare evaluation.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder’s conclusion that relocation to Cumbria was in C’s best interests disclosed no material error of law or evaluation.

2. The governing principle in both internal and external relocation cases is the child’s welfare under section 1 of the Children Act 1989. A court must consider the available realistic options holistically. The welfare checklist is a useful framework, including where it is not formally engaged by the route through which the application is made.

3. Earlier references to an internal move being prevented only in exceptional circumstances did not establish an additional threshold. Courts will commonly be reluctant to restrict a parent’s choice of home within the United Kingdom because the welfare analysis usually points that way. A restriction is justified only where the child’s welfare requires it.

4. The guidance in Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166 may assist a judge to identify relevant considerations. It is neither the legal test nor a prescriptive blueprint, and it must not displace an assessment of the particular child’s welfare.

5. The Article 8 interests of both parents are relevant because either outcome may interfere with family life. Proportionality is, however, part of the integrated welfare balance. It is not a separate exercise capable of overriding the statutory paramountcy principle.

6. The Recorder had considered C’s relationship with the father, C’s wishes, schooling, accommodation, the practical contact arrangements, and the consequences for each parent. He was entitled to depart from the CAFCASS recommendation after evaluating all the evidence. The proposed move would reduce weekday contact, but the Recorder was entitled to find that the relationship was sufficiently established to withstand that change and that the welfare balance favoured relocation.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The father’s appeal was dismissed in [2015] EWCA Civ 1305.
• Central Family Court. Mr Recorder Digney permitted the mother to relocate with C from London to Cumbria, made school directions, and made child-arrangements provision for C’s time with the father.