Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
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