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
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
View all articles
Authors

LEAVE TO REMOVE: Re H (Leave to Remove) [2010] EWCA Civ 915

Sep 29, 2018, 17:30 PM
Slug : leave-to-remove-re-h-leave-to-remove-2010-ewca-civ-915
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 5, 2010, 07:30 AM
Article ID : 91265

(Court of Appeal; Jacob, Lloyd and Wilson LJJ; 19 May 2010)

The child was born in England and then moved to the Czech Republic aged one. The child spent some three years there but then returned to England for almost two years. The mother then took her child back to the Czech Republic without the father's permission. The father obtained an order requiring the mother to return which she did, but she sought leave to relocate to the Czech Republic. The child was now 7-years-old. The judge found that the mother and the father were both caring and good parents and granted leave with staying contact with the father in the UK and the Czech Republic. The father would be devastated if permission was given, and equally the mother, the primary carer, would be devastated if permission was not given.

The judge had failed to refer to wishes of child. The Court examined criticisms of Payne and also considered the Washington Declaration on International Family Relocation. Consideration to be given to whether the present law of England and Wales placed excessive weight upon impact on primary carer. Nonetheless, appeal dismissed.

__________________________________________________________________

Family Law Reports

Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.

They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.

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