RD v TJ (Relocation - BIIA - Transitional Provisions)

International relocation and child-arrangements decisions are determined by the child’s paramount welfare. The court must undertake a holistic, non-linear comparative evaluation of the competing proposals, applying the welfare checklist and conducting any necessary proportionality assessment. A shared-lives-with order does not require equal division of time or exceptional circumstances; the decisive question remains whether it promotes the child’s welfare. Transitional provisions under the Withdrawal Agreement preserve the application of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 to proceedings instituted before the end of the transition period, including recognition and enforcement of resulting judgments.

The proceedings concerned a child whose mother had previously obtained temporary permission to relocate her from England to Poland. The father subsequently relocated to Poland, and the court listed a review to determine whether the conditions identified in the earlier judgment had been satisfied.

The court considered the mother’s psychological treatment, the maintenance of the child’s relationship with her father, the appropriate shared-care arrangements, schooling, passports and the recognition and enforcement of the final order in Poland. The central issues were whether the temporary relocation should become permanent and what arrangements would best promote the child’s welfare.

1. Permanent relocation. The mother’s application for permanent leave to remove the child to Poland was granted. The court was satisfied that the two principal preconditions identified in the earlier judgment had been met: the mother had genuinely engaged with appropriate psychological therapy and the child’s relationship with her father had been maintained and supported. The paramount-welfare assessment therefore favoured the child living in Poland with both parents.
2. Applicable welfare framework. Applying Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Cases) [2015] EWCA Civ 882, [2017] 1 FLR 979, the court treated the decision as requiring a holistic and non-linear comparative evaluation of the competing plans, with the welfare checklist, parental-involvement presumption and proportionality considerations taken into account. The child’s welfare remained the paramount consideration.
3. Shared care. Applying the principles discussed in Re W (Shared Residence Order) [2009] EWCA Civ 370, a shared-lives-with order did not require equal time or exceptional circumstances. The existing six/eight-day arrangement was retained because it worked in practice and no compelling welfare reason justified a change to seven/seven care. A one-week-on, one-week-off arrangement was not determined in the summary review because it would have represented a significant change requiring fuller enquiry.
4. Schooling and enforcement. An international primary school was selected as the welfare-preferred setting, having regard to the child’s international background and both parents’ ability to participate in her education. The father was directed to meet the costs. The final order was capable of recognition and enforcement in Poland under the transitional provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement and Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003. The father was to make the enforcement application and pay its costs.

Not an appeal. The judgment records earlier substantive decisions concerning the temporary relocation, including a December 2019 order, but gives no separate citation for those decisions.