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
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
Emotional harm and interim removal: how psychological thinking can support practice
Dr Ben Laskey ClinPsyD, AFBPS, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, The Psychology PartnershipGeorge Butler, Barrister at Law, 42 Bedford Row ChambersThe family courts are full of cases involving...
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