Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
In Relocation, Relocation, Relocation: Rigorous Scrutiny Revisited  Fam Law 220 Piers Pressdee analyses the application of the first limb of Thorpe LJs discipline for international relocation cases in Payne v Payne (2001) EWCA Civ 166,  1 FLR 1052. He argues that the rigorous scrutiny test set out should be applied with greater flexibility that hitherto thought to be the case. This article considers the third limb of the discipline: the great weight to be attached to impact of refusal of permission upon the primary carer.
In November 2000 the Court of Appeal gave judgment in the case of D v D (Shared Residence Order)  1 FLR 495, a decision which significantly widened the opportunities for the making of shared residence orders. In February 2001 a differently constituted court (but both including Dame Elizabeth Butler Sloss P) handed down its decision in Payne. The intervening years have seen a substantial body of further case law on each topic.
The purpose of this article is to analyse and draw together the developments in each of these two areas of the law in relation to children. The impact of the present law in relation to shared residence upon the decision as to whether to permit relocation is examined. In the article Charles Geekie suggests that there have been significant changes in relation to the roles of parents engaged in residence disputes within a domestic, or national, setting. By contrast, residence cases with an international element relocation cases have been stagnant in this regard and have failed to reflect that which has been recognised in a domestic setting.
For the full article, see May  Family Law journal.
To log on to Family Law Online or to request a free trial click here.