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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

LEAVE TO REMOVE: Re H (Removal Outside Jurisdiction) [2007] EWCA Civ 222

Sep 29, 2018, 17:16 PM
Slug : re-h-removal-outside-jurisdiction-2007-ewca-civ-222
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 8, 2007, 05:00 AM
Article ID : 87765

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Thomas and Wall LJJ; 8 February 2007)

The judge's refusal of an application by the American mother for leave to relocate to the US with the child and her new English husband was upheld. The judge had erred in categorising the case as a change of lifestyle case, but it would not be principled to interfere with his conclusion; he had been entitled to conclude that the mother was restless and prone to impulsive behaviour. Further, the mother had confirmed that if her husband were not permitted to emigrate to the US because of objections by the US authorities, the mother would make the best of things and cope, and the judge was entitled to consider that the same would be true if the court frustrated the emigration plan by refusing leave to remove.

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