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

RELOCATION: S v T (Permission to Relocate to Russia)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:00 PM
Slug : relocation-s-v-t
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 14, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 101661

(Family Division, Hedley J, 7 December 2012)

The English father and Russian mother married and had a child, now a year old, in the UK. When the parents' relationship broke down the child remained with the mother in the matrimonial home while the father had regular contact under an interim contact order. The mother sought permission to relocate with the child to Russia while the father sought a prohibited steps order preventing her from doing so and for a shared care arrangement.

The mother proposed she would travel to England four times per year for 9-10 days each time and the father could fly to Russia four times per year. The father proposed a shared care arrangement whereby the child spent four nights per week with the mother and three nights per week with him. It was clear that the parents were genuine in their motivations; the mother wishing to return home and the father's fundamental interest was his child's welfare.

The mother was granted permission to relocate conditional upon her obtaining an order from the Russian court based on the contact proposals. The welfare of the child would be promoted by the move. He was going to make his home essentially with his mother although time with the father would undoubtedly increase and become a significant part of the child's life. Parties who entered into transnational parenting were aware of the consequences of a subsequent relationship break down and the mother's plans were no more or no less obvious to the parties had they considered when they agreed to become parents what would happen upon breakdown of the relationship. 

 

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