Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
View all articles

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