Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

RELOCATION: Re S (Children); LSA v RBS [2011] EWCA Civ 454

Sep 29, 2018, 18:20 PM
Slug : 2011EWCA454
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 24, 2011, 10:28 AM
Article ID : 94853

(Court of Appeal; Lloyd and Patten LJJ and Sir Mark Potter; 18 April 2011)

The Canadian father applied for leave to remove his two boys to Canada. The children were born and raised in England. The English mother was the primary carer. The boys, aged 16 and 12, wanted to move with the father. They had visited Canada three times, and had relatives there. Judge granted father's application based on views expressed by boys. The mother appealed.

The mother's appeal was allowed in respect of the younger sibling. The judge had failed to consider each child's welfare individually and had not therefore recognised that the welfare interests of the children were at odds in light of their different ages. With additional developments, it was in the interests of the younger child for the status quo to continue.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from