A (A Child), Re (Relocation)

In an international relocation application, the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration. There is no presumption in favour of either relocation or the parent who remains behind. The court must assess each realistic proposal on its own merits and then compare the proposals through a global, holistic and multi-faceted welfare evaluation. A relocation which may materially affect parental relationships must also be assessed for proportionality under Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention. Findings of domestic abuse are relevant to the welfare assessment, but they do not determine the application without evaluating the likely effects of each proposal on the child. The court may permit relocation where the benefits of freeing the primary carer from an abusive and controlling relationship outweigh the risks to the child’s relationship with the other parent, provided that meaningful direct and indirect contact remains realistically achievable.

The father and mother were separated parents of a young child. The mother, who was the child’s primary carer, sought permission to relocate permanently with the child from England to Slovakia, where she would have accommodation and support from her family. The father opposed relocation and proposed that the child remain in England with the mother, with regular contact.

The proceedings began with the father’s application under the inherent jurisdiction for the child’s summary return from Slovakia. That issue remained formally outstanding because welfare questions had not been determined. The court therefore considered the mother’s deemed relocation application alongside allegations of domestic abuse, controlling behaviour, dishonesty and the practical arrangements for future contact. The central issue was which proposal best served the child’s welfare.

1. Findings of fact. The court found that the father had assaulted and abused the mother, had exercised controlling behaviour, and had given substantially dishonest evidence. The mother’s allegations of frequent violence, suicide attempts, violence towards the child and fabrication were rejected. The findings were relevant to the welfare assessment but were not determinative of it.
2. Applicable approach. Under s 1 of the Children Act 1989, the child’s welfare was paramount and there was no presumption favouring either proposal. The court applied the guidance in Re F (A Child) (International Relocation), including the requirement to consider each realistic option on its internal merits and to compare the options side by side through a global and holistic evaluation. The court also considered proportionality because relocation engaged the parents’ and child’s Article 8 rights.
3. Welfare evaluation. Remaining in England would facilitate more frequent contact with the father and preserve the child’s connection with his Muslim faith and English language. However, it carried a significant risk that the father would continue controlling and abusive behaviour towards the mother, worsening her mental health and indirectly harming the child. Relocation would provide the mother and child with stable accommodation and extensive family support, reduce the father’s opportunity to exercise control, and improve the mother’s ability to care for the child.
4. The principal disadvantage of relocation was the risk of diminished contact with the father. The court accepted that the mother had consistently facilitated contact despite the litigation and that monthly contact in England, additional contact in Slovakia, indirect contact and future holidays were feasible. Contact would not expose the child to an unmanageable risk of harm, although a domestic abuse perpetrator programme was appropriate to manage the risk arising from parental conflict.
5. Disposition. The mother’s application was granted. The child was to reside with the mother, and the mother was permitted to relocate with her to Slovakia. Contact was to continue in England before relocation and thereafter substantially in accordance with the mother’s proposal, subject to detailed consequential arrangements. The father was to be referred to a Domestic Abuse Perpetrator Programme. The parties were permitted to disclose the papers to the Slovakian court and lawyers.

First instance decision. The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision in this litigation.