S-O (Children) (Relocation and Prohibited Steps Order), Re

In an international relocation case, the welfare balancing exercise requires the court to evaluate the internal advantages and disadvantages of each realistic option, then compare those options side by side. It is insufficient to consider relocation alone and defer the consequences of refusal, including alternative living arrangements, to later proceedings.

A prohibited steps order preventing overseas contact requires an assessment of the nature and sufficiency of the actual risk of wrongful retention. The absence of an effective foreign enforcement mechanism, and the serious consequences if retention occurred, do not alone justify the order where the evidence does not establish a sufficient risk and the child’s welfare supports the visit.

The mother sought permission for both children to relocate with her to State A, where she worked. During the proceedings she accepted the independent social worker’s recommendation that S should remain in England with his father, but maintained her application for C to move with her. The independent social worker recommended C’s relocation and supported S visiting the mother in State A.

His Honour Judge Major dismissed the relocation application and continued a prohibited steps order preventing S from travelling to State A. The mother appealed. The central issues were whether the judge had undertaken a sufficient comparative welfare evaluation of C’s realistic options and whether the evidence justified continuing the prohibited steps order concerning S.

1. The appeal was allowed. The relocation decision was set aside and remitted for a complete rehearing before a High Court judge. The prohibited steps order affecting S was discharged.

2. The required welfare balancing exercise, as described in Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Case) [2015] EWCA Civ 882 and Re G (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, requires every relevant welfare factor to be weighed and each realistic option to be evaluated for its own advantages and disadvantages before the options are compared.

3. The judge considered relocation but did not analyse the competing alternatives, including continuation of the existing arrangements and C living with F2. Nor did she assess the welfare implications of refusing relocation, including the evidence that C’s need for consistent day-to-day care from her primary attachment figure could be adversely affected by the existing fragmented pattern of maternal care. Those omissions made the welfare evaluation insufficient.

4. The findings below were integral to the welfare assessment. They could not sensibly be preserved while requiring another judge to conduct the comparative evaluation. The rehearing would therefore be complete and no findings would be retained.

5. The core issue for the prohibited steps order was whether there was a sufficient risk that the mother would retain S in State A. The lack of an effective local mechanism to enforce an English order and the gravity of a wrongful retention did not establish that risk. The mother had accepted that S should remain in England; S wished to visit her; previous overseas visits had occurred without incident; and wrongful retention would carry serious personal, financial and professional consequences for the mother. There was no evidence of a sufficient risk to outweigh the welfare benefits of S visiting her.

6. The relocation application was remitted urgently for rehearing. The court expressed no view on its merits.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2026] EWCA Civ 998 , allowed the mother’s appeals, discharged the prohibited steps order concerning S, and remitted C’s relocation application for a complete rehearing before a High Court judge.

• Croydon County Court and Family Court: On 27 February 2026, His Honour Judge Major, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dismissed the mother’s relocation application and continued the prohibited steps order. No citation was stated.