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
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
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...
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...
View all articles

LEAVE TO REMOVE: Re W (Leave to Remove) [2009] EWCA Civ 160

Sep 29, 2018, 16:13 PM
Slug : re-w-leave-to-remove-2009-ewca-civ-160
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 28, 2009, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 85079

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Wall and Aikens LJJ; 28 January 2009)

The judge refused the mother permission to relocate to New Zealand with the children, aged 10 and 5. The mother's new partner, with whom she had a young child, had obtained work in New Zealand, and claimed that he was unable to obtain work within the UK. Some time earlier the mother and her new partner had moved from Shropshire to Norfolk in order to assist the new partner to find work, but this move had not been successful. There had been earlier difficulties over contact, and the move within the jurisdiction had made contact more difficult, but contact was taking place. The mother claimed that she was taking medication for depression, and that the effect on her of a refusal of leave would be 'devastating'. The new partner claimed that would go to New Zealand alone if necessary. The judge formed an unfavourable impression of both the mother and her new partner, and formed a favourable impression of the father. The judge considered that although the application was a genuine one, it would be refused for a variety of reasons, including that (i) the mother would not be emotionally damaged by a refusal (there was no medical evidence that the mother would suffer more than disappointment); (ii) ties with New Zealand were slim; (iii) the new partner could find work in the UK if he made more effort; (iv) there were doubts as to whether contact would be maintained given the real hostility between the parents; (v) the children's views in favour of the move were of limited value (being based on a holiday experience of New Zealand); and (vi) the new partner's attitude that he would go anyway suggested a lack of commitment to family life.

The judge's decision was one that had been entitled to reach. The impression that the witnesses had made on the judge had been crucial.

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