Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
Focusing on behaviour and attitudes of separating parents
I am sure that if this year's Family Law Awards were an in-person event as usual, rather than this year’s virtual occasion, much of the chatter among family law professionals would be...
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