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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

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