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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

LEAVE TO REMOVE: Re B (Leave to Remove) [2008] EWCA Civ 1034

Sep 29, 2018, 16:12 PM
Slug : re-b-leave-to-remove-2008-ewca-civ-1034
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 22, 2008, 11:47 AM
Article ID : 84841

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe; Rix and Longmore LJJ; 22 July 2008)

The German mother was initially refused leave to remove the three children to Germany, notwithstanding that she was suffering from reactive depression, on the basis that she had not investigated the practicalities of the move and that she was unlikely to allow father real contact following such a move. Later the mother renewed her application; in the interim contact arrangements had improved. An expert who had produced a report in relation to the father's residence application, but had not had more recent contact with the family, gave oral evidence at the leave to remove hearing in which she went beyond her original report, giving strong evidence that the removal would have a very negative impact on the children and would severely damage their relationship with the father. The judge refused leave, concluding that, although the mother's depressive state was likely to be exacerbated by a refusal, relocation would effectively alienate the children from the father.

Criticisms could be made of the expert's evidence on the newly arisen issue of relocation, but the mother's counsel had not challenged the evidence at the time and the judge had been entitled to place reliance on it. The judge had been entitled to reach her very clear findings as to the fatal effect of relocation on the children's relationship with the father and the mother's appeal was dismissed.

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