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
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
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...
View all articles
Authors

LEAVE TO REMOVE: Re F (Leave to Remove) [2005] EWHC 2705 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:36 PM
Slug : re-f-leave-to-remove-2005-ewhc-2705-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 30, 2005, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88673

(Family Division; Mr Jeremy Richardson QC; 30 September 2005) [2006] 1 FLR 776

The mother was refused leave to remove the child from the jurisdiction. The mother's plans to move to Jamaica with the maternal grandfather were genuine, but ill-conceived. The mother's plans to support herself and the child were wildly speculative, the research into schools had been poor, and the school identified unsuitable because neither parent could afford it. There were insufficient funds to provide for regular airfares for contact visits, and the mother's hostility to the father might make contact difficult. As Jamaica was a non-Convention country, the father might have difficulties enforcing any order for contact made. There would be no benefit to the child in relocating, and the close bond with his father would be severed. If the mother remained in the jurisdiction her life would not be unduly thwarted.

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