Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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