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...
Latest articles
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
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...
View all articles

LEAVE TO REMOVE: Re B (Leave to Remove) [2006] EWHC 1783 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:19 PM
Slug : re-b-leave-to-remove-2006-ewhc-1783-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 19, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 89123

(Sumner J; Family Division; 19 July 2006)

The father was a gay man who on invitation supplied the mother, his sister's lesbian partner, with sperm for use in artificial insemination. After the birth, notwithstanding prior agreement, the father sought to be treated as a parent, rather than as an uncle. Conflict between the parties escalated. The mother twice removed the child from the jurisdiction, once in direct contravention of a court order, and twice made allegations, subsequently proved to be unfounded, that the father had sexually abused the child. The father expended considerable time and money on pursuing regular contact. The mother now sought leave to move to the USA. Her own elderly mother lived in the USA, and, although unemployed in the UK for some years, she had been offered employment by a US firm. The father opposed the application on the basis that the mother would use the move to sever the hard-won relationship between father and child.

This was a genuine, strongly reasoned, practical application by the mother to relocate to the USA. The effect on the mother of refusing leave would be dramatic and long lasting, and the impact of this on the mother's care of the child was one of the decisive factors. In addition, the only real prospect for an improvement to the current atmosphere of conflict and mutual mistrust was for the mother to move to the USA, reducing pressure and increasing stability. The father's contact with the child should continue and be developed. Significant conditions were attached to the grant of leave, including mirror orders, and appropriate undertakings, the parents beginning to communicate with each other, and money from the sale of the mother's English property to be held to the order of the court to provide the father with reassurances as to contact.

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