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...
Latest articles
Perspectives on civil partnerships and marriages in England and Wales: aspects, attitudes and assessments
IntroductionThis article considers the developments since the turn of the century in the provision of new options for same sex and opposite sex couples to formalise their unions with full legal...
Family Law journal - take the survey and you could win £50 worth of vouchers
Do you subscribe to Family Law journal?Our aim is to provide all subscribers of Family Law with compelling, insightful and helpful content that you enjoy reading and find useful in your...
Commencement date of 6 April 2022 announced for the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020
The Ministry of Justice has announced that the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020), which received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020, will now have a commencement date of 6 April 2022....
HMCTS blog highlights the use of video hearing due to COVID-19
HM Courts & Tribunals Service has published a blog detailing the impacts of coronavirus (COVID-19) on hearings. Pre-pandemic, HMCTS states that the use of video technology for live participation...
Will future earnings ever be shared after divorce?
Almost all clients want their finances to be resolved without ongoing financial connections so they can each go their separate ways without continuing financial ties i.e., they want to have a...
View all articles

LEAVE TO REMOVE: Re W (Leave to Remove) [2008] EWCA Civ 538

Sep 29, 2018, 17:09 PM
Slug : re-w-leave-to-remove-2008-ewca-civ-538
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 28, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87087

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe and Wilson LJJ and Charles J; 20 May 2008)

The Swedish family had lived in London for 15 years; the three children were all attending private schools. Following the separation the family had significant financial problems. The mother sought to return with the children to Sweden, where comparable schooling and housing would be much cheaper. The father asserted that the children's welfare depended upon their remaining at the London schools. The children were broadly supportive of such a move, not least because they envisaged that they would have to leave their current schools for financial reasons in any event. The judge refused the mother leave to remove.

The judge had not given sufficient weight to the family's financial situation; if the mother and children remained in London they would have to find housing of a much lower standard. The wishes and feelings of the children were plain enough and the judge should have given them greater weight. Thorpe LJ suggested that communication issues concerning the Cafcass presentation of the children's views might have been avoided if the judge had met with the children, particularly the eldest, nearly 15 years old, but Wilson LJ and Charles J did not agree that a meeting between the judge and the children would have been appropriate or provided a solution that was fair, and indeed would not have met the children prior to judgment had they been in the judge's position.

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