The Father v The Mother

Applications for internal relocation must be decided by applying the child’s welfare as the paramount consideration. The court must undertake a global and holistic evaluation of the child’s best interests, balancing all relevant factors rather than applying a supplementary requirement of exceptionality or a presumption against relocation.

The analysis includes the parents’ wishes and feelings, the likely impact of each available outcome on the child and each parent, and the parties’ Article 8 rights and proportionality. There is no principle that parents should receive equal amounts of time. A shared residence order may be appropriate even where the child spends unequal periods with each parent.

The proceedings concerned the welfare of a four-year-old child whose parents had never lived together. The Father sought shared care, initially on an effectively equal basis. The Mother sought permission to relocate with the child from Nottingham to Rugby because her employment required her to live nearer London.

Both parents were accepted to be loving and capable carers. The Cafcass officer opposed relocation and recommended movement towards equal care. The central issues were whether relocation served the child’s welfare, how it would affect the child’s relationships with both parents, and what contact arrangements should follow.

1. Welfare principle. The court applied the welfare principle and the welfare checklist in a global and holistic evaluation of the child’s best interests. The approach required balancing all relevant options and factors, including the parents’ wishes and feelings and their likely impact on the child.
2. Internal relocation. Following Re C (Internal Relocation) [2015] EWCA Civ 1305, there was no supplementary requirement that a proposed internal relocation be exceptional. The practical effect of relocation, including whether arrangements could preserve the child’s relationship with the other parent, formed part of the welfare analysis. The court also considered the parties’ Article 8 interests and proportionality.
3. Application. Refusing relocation would require the Mother to abandon a successful career which provided substantial self-worth and wellbeing. The court found that this would seriously affect her emotional welfare and was likely to affect the child. Relocation would reduce weekday time with the Father, but the Father’s insistence that he could not travel or arrange cover was unduly rigid. With goodwill and flexibility, meaningful weekday and extended weekend contact remained feasible.
4. Equal care. There was no starting principle of equal time between parents. The child’s bond with a parent did not depend on chronological equality. The proposed move was therefore permitted, and a shared lives with order remained appropriate notwithstanding unequal time.
5. Orders. The child was to relocate to Rugby. The Father was ordered to have overnight contact on Wednesdays, subject to arranging suitable collection and return arrangements. The court declined to require the maternal grandparents to facilitate that contact and declined to increase the Father’s time before the child started school.