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
Rattan v Kuwad [2021] EWCA Civ 1
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Macur, Moylan and Asplin LJJ, 11 January 2021)Financial remedies – Maintenance pending suit – Order set aside – AppealThe wife’s appeal from...
SMO (a child) (by their litigation friend (acting as a representative claimant pursuant to CPR 19.6)) v TikTok Inc. and others [2020] EWHC 3589 (QB)
(Queen's Bench Division, Warby J, 30 December 2020)Practice and procedure - Anonymity – 12-year-old bringing claim against TikTok for breach of data protection legislation – Claimant...
Coronavirus: Separated Families and Contact with Children in Care FAQs (UK)
The House of Commons Library has published a paper providing brief information in response to some key questions regarding the impact of the Coronavirus outbreak on separated families,...
The Benefit Of Cohabitation Agreements
Many couples in Britain today live together without being married or forming a civil partnership. For some, the legal status of this situation isn’t well understood - do unmarried cohabitants...
Wills and Coronavirus
With the coronavirus pandemic we have seen a significant increase in demand for Wills. However, the social distancing, lockdown and shielding measures introduced by the Government to help fight the...
View all articles
Authors

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 :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from