RC (Mother) v AB (Father)

Applications for international relocation are determined by the child’s welfare. Each case is fact-specific, and the court must consider the statutory welfare checklist and the child’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Relevant considerations include the genuineness and practicality of the relocation plan, the child’s relationships with both sides of the family, the likely effect of relocation, risk of harm, parental capability, and the feasibility and enforceability of future contact. Permission to relocate may be made conditional on safeguards securing that contact, including undertakings, foreign recognition of the order and a property charge.

The mother sought permission to relocate R, aged eight, permanently from England to Angola, where he had lived for most of the previous two years. The father opposed relocation and sought a Child Arrangements Order regulating contact in England.

The court considered the parents’ history of conflict, the mother’s unilateral removal of R in 2013, the father’s subsequent harassing conduct, R’s relationships with both families, his wishes and feelings, the proposed arrangements for contact, and the reliability and enforceability of those arrangements.

The central issue was whether relocation to Angola, subject to appropriate safeguards, was in R’s best interests.

1. Relocation principle. The application was determined under the welfare principle in section 1 of the Children Act 1989. International relocation cases are fact-specific. The court was guided by section 1(3), Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the guidance in Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166 and K v K (Relocation: Shared Care Arrangement) [2011] EWCA Civ 793.
2. The court considered whether the mother’s application was genuine, whether her plans were realistic and practical, the importance of R’s relationship with his father and paternal family, the likely effect of relocation, risk of harm, the parents’ capability, and the proposed mechanisms for maintaining and enforcing contact.
3. The mother’s earlier unilateral removal of R was improper and her record of facilitating contact created a substantial trust issue. Nevertheless, her current plans were genuine, realistic and well researched. R had adapted well to life and education in Angola, and his welfare was best served by relocating with his mother.
4. R’s relationship with both sides of his family was a dominant welfare consideration. The court therefore made relocation conditional on safeguards, including the mother applying in Angola for review and confirmation of the order, and the maternal grandmother providing a charge over her London property.
5. The court accepted undertakings against violence, intimidation, harassment and property damage. It made Child Arrangements Orders providing that R live with his mother and spend specified school-holiday periods and regular remote contact with his father. The charge was enforceable only with the court’s permission if contact or return arrangements were not honoured.
6. The father was not required to undertake a domestic-abuse perpetrator programme as a precondition of contact. The court considered that the recent misconduct arose principally from anger concerning the mother’s removal of R and that the dispute’s temperature should reduce after the proceedings.

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