Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

PERMISSION TO REMOVE: K v K (Relocation: Shared Care Arrangement) [2011] EWCA Civ 793

Sep 29, 2018, 17:47 PM
Slug : 2011EWCACiv793
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 10, 2011, 10:25 AM
Article ID : 95431

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Moore-Bick and Black LJJ; 7 July 2011)

A Canadian mother sought permission to relocate.The family was established in England which was where the children were born. After the divorce a shared residence order was made. Both parents worked part-time to enable them to spend more time with the children. The children's time was divided between the mother and the Polish father. Every 14 days 6 days/5 nights were spent with the father and 8 days/9 nights were spent with the mother. Work schedules meant that the children spent all their time with the father being cared for by him and some of the time with the mother being cared for by a nanny. Cafcass described the decision as s finely balanced judgment, but recommended the refusal of mother's application. The trial judge granted her application and the father sought leave to appeal.

Held that the trial judge had misdirected herself in law. She had failed to consider the judgment of Hedley J in Re Y [2004] 2 FLR 330 which had also concerned a shared care arrangement. She had also failed to give reasons for rejecting the recommendation of the Cafcass officer to refuse to permit the removal, and had failed to address the factors pointing away from permission to relocate.

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