O, Re (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation)

In a permanent international relocation application, the child’s welfare remains the paramount consideration under the Children Act 1989. There is no presumption in favour of either parent. The court must undertake a global and holistic evaluation of the realistic options. Article 8 proportionality is part of that welfare balancing exercise; a separate proportionality cross-check is unnecessary and may be unhelpful. Where domestic abuse is established, PD12J must be applied, including assessment of ongoing abuse, risk, protection and contact. The absence of an effective welfare or enforcement jurisdiction abroad is a factor attracting considerable weight, but is not automatically fatal. Permission to relocate may be granted before detailed post-relocation contact arrangements are finalised where the proposed arrangements are realistic and the other parent has declined to address them.

The mother applied for permission under the Children Act 1989 to remove her two sons permanently from England to the United Arab Emirates. The Family Court, after earlier findings of serious domestic abuse by the father, granted permission on 17 January 2025. The judge found that abuse and coercive control remained ongoing, that the children were at continuing risk of harm, and that the UAE offered no reliable welfare or enforcement jurisdiction for unmarried parents.

The father appealed, challenging the proportionality assessment, the adequacy of the relocation and contact plans, the weight given to domestic abuse and the lack of a foreign forum, and the decision to defer detailed contact arrangements. The central question was whether relocation was in the children’s best interests and whether permission could properly be granted before final contact arrangements were determined.

Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Cobb gave the judgment, with Lord Justices Baker and Underhill agreeing.

1. The governing test for permanent leave to remove under sections 8 or 13(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989 is the child’s welfare under section 1(1), considered with the section 1(3) welfare checklist. There is no presumption in favour of the applicant parent: K v K [2011] EWCA Civ 793 and Re F (Relocation) [2012] EWCA Civ 1364.
2. The court must conduct a global, holistic evaluation of each realistic option. Proportionality must be considered, but naturally within the wider welfare balancing exercise. A separate Article 8 cross-check is unnecessary and likely to distract from the child-focused inquiry: Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Case) [2015] EWCA Civ 882 and Re C (A Child) (Internal Relocation) [2015] EWCA Civ 1305.
3. Where domestic abuse is established, PD12J must be applied as in other private-law cases. The court must assess its effect on the child, the parents’ capacity to recognise its impact, ongoing risk, available protection, and the safety and supervision of contact. Relocation cases additionally require consideration of distance, protective measures and the change of jurisdiction.
4. The absence of a reliable welfare or enforcement jurisdiction in the UAE attracted considerable weight, but was not fatal. The judge was entitled to rely on his sustained assessment of the mother and her commitment to preserving the children’s relationship with their father. The threefold approach in Re A [2013] EWCA Civ 1115 is principally directed to temporary removal to non-Hague Convention countries, but remains a useful aide memoire in permanent relocation cases.
5. The relocation plan was sufficiently realistic despite unresolved details caused by the lengthy proceedings. Permission could be granted before detailed contact arrangements were finalised because the mother had advanced realistic proposals and the father had declined to address the issue. The application was restored to the judge to determine those arrangements, with an appropriate recital inviting UAE courts to recognise the English order under reciprocity.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal against the relocation order was dismissed. The mother’s application was restored before the trial judge for determination of detailed post-relocation child arrangements.
2. Family Court sitting at Medway: Recorder Samuels KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, granted the mother permission on 17 January 2025 to remove the children permanently to the UAE.