B v C

In a child relocation application, the governing principle is the child’s welfare. The court must assess the practical consequences of the proposed move, including its effect on the child’s relationship with each parent and on the parents’ family life. Internal and external relocation are governed by the same welfare-based approach. Where the parents’ rights cannot all be accommodated, the child’s best interests receive primary importance. A proposed adjournment should be refused where it would create a real risk of further conflict or manipulation of contact arrangements.

The parents made competing applications concerning arrangements for their three-year-old child. The father sought an order regularising substantial weekly time with the child. The mother sought permission to relocate permanently with the child to Israel, or alternatively to reduce the father’s contact. Both parents were capable of providing good day-to-day care, but their relationship was persistently acrimonious. The central issue was whether relocation to Israel was in the child’s welfare best interests, having regard to the reduced frequency of contact with the father and the benefits for the child and mother of living in Israel.

1. The child’s welfare was the paramount consideration under section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989. The court considered the welfare checklist under section 1(3) and had regard to the Article 6 and Article 8 rights of the child and both parents.
2. Where the Article 8 rights of a parent conflict with those of the child, the child’s rights prevail. The court applied the principles summarised in Re C (Internal Relocation) [2015] EWCA Civ 1305: internal and external relocation are governed by the welfare principle, and the court must examine whether the proposed move can work in practice while protecting the child’s relationship with both parents.
3. The court considered the competing advantages and disadvantages. Relocation would substantially reduce the frequency and regularity of the father’s contact, but the relationship could be maintained through lengthy holiday contact and visits to Israel. Israel was familiar to both parents, the child spoke Hebrew fluently, and the child’s maternal and paternal families lived there. Refusing relocation would preserve frequent contact but would expose the mother to continuing emotional and psychological pressure which could adversely affect the child.
4. The proposed twelve-month adjournment was rejected. It risked prolonging conflict and allowing contact difficulties to be used to undermine the relocation application. The court therefore had to determine the relocation application immediately.
5. On the overall welfare balance, relocation was in the child’s best interests. Permission was granted for the mother to apply to relocate and, pending a final order, to take the child to Israel temporarily. Permanent relocation was to follow once contact arrangements were agreed or ordered, with mirror orders in Israel to assist enforcement.