Re Y (Leave to Remove Children from Jurisdiction)

Applications to remove children from the jurisdiction are governed by the ordinary welfare principle. There is no presumption for or against relocation. The court must undertake a holistic evaluation of each child’s welfare, applying the welfare checklist under Children Act 1989, section 1(3).

The assessment must balance the benefits of the proposed move against its risks. Relevant matters include the children’s relationships with both parents, the effect of altered contact, the applicant’s motivation and reliability, the practical arrangements for care and education, security concerns, and the availability of safeguards. A proposal may be granted where the overall welfare balance favours relocation, notwithstanding uncertainty and a reduction in contact frequency.

The mother applied for permission to take the two children, aged eight and nearly five, from England to Amman, Jordan, for approximately two years while undertaking employment with an international humanitarian organisation. The father opposed the application, relying on regional security risks, uncertainty about the mother’s work and care arrangements, the absence of effective enforcement mechanisms, and the likely effect on his relationship with the children.

The court heard evidence from both parents, an independent social worker and an expert on legal safeguards in Jordan. The central issue was whether relocation from 6 November 2019 until August 2021 met the children’s welfare needs.

1. Application granted. The mother was permitted to remove the children from the jurisdiction from 6 November 2019, subject to their return by the middle of August 2021 at the latest.
2. The court applied the welfare principle in section 1 of the Children Act 1989. There could be no presumption in favour of or against relocation. The decision required a holistic evaluation of the welfare checklist in section 1(3), with the children’s welfare as the paramount consideration.
3. The children were well adjusted and had secure, loving relationships with both parents. The mother had been their primary carer and had generally made child-focused decisions. Although the move would reduce the frequency of contact with the father, the proposed longer periods of contact, visits to Jordan, twice-weekly Skype contact and regular updates could preserve the relationship.
4. The court weighed the stability of the children’s current lives and schooling against the benefits of the mother’s career progression, improved financial security and the likely emotional impact on the children if the application were refused. The mother’s motivation was found to be genuine and not directed towards distancing the children from their father.
5. Risks arising from the mother’s travel, incomplete practical details, regional security and the lack of effective enforcement in Jordan were acknowledged. They were mitigated by the mother’s experience, her prior knowledge of Amman, the employer’s family-friendly arrangements, the proposed childcare and the security offered over her interest in the family home.
6. The parents were directed to improve communication and respect each other’s parental roles. The relocation was considered more likely than refusal to promote improved co-parenting and therefore to meet the children’s overall welfare needs.