Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email editor@familylaw.co.uk.
Spotlight
A day in the life Of...
Zahra Pabani
Zahra Pabani
Partner - Family Law
Read on
Re R (Final) [2016] EWCA Civ 1016
Date:25 OCT 2016
Third slide
Law Reporter

Court of Appeal, Black, Floyd LJJ and Baker J, 20 October 2016

Abduction – Internal relocation – Re C (Internal Relocation) [2015] EWCA Civ 1305 – Whether as a general principle children relocated within England and Wales should be summarily returned

The father’s appeal from a decision refusing to order the child’s return to the family home in Kent was refused.

When the parents of the one-year-old child separated the mother took the child from the family home in Kent and relocated to the North East. She initiated proceedings in relation to the child there.

The father characterised the relocation as abduction and sought the child’s return to Kent. He argued that following the decision in Re C (Internal Relocation) [2015] EWCA Civ 1305, the court should take the same approach to the case as would be taken where a child was unilaterally removed abroad, restoring the status quo by returning the child home forthwith and allowing the court in Kent to determine the issues between the parties. The application was refused and a first appeal from that decision was dismissed.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court was clear that Re C did not represent a sea change in the law which dictated a new approach to cases where one parent unilaterally moved a child from their home to another place in England and Wales. It was not accepted that there was or should be a general principle that summary return to the place where the child was formerly resident should follow upon such a move unless there were good welfare reasons why that should not happen.

The judge below did not err in his approach and he applied the correct principles. He made welfare the paramount consideration and applied the welfare checklist. He had a delicate decision to make and it had not been established that he erred in his consideration of the factors relevant to it.


Case No: B4/2016/1437

Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 1016

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT AT NEWCASTLE
HIS HONOUR JUDGE HEATON QC
NE16P00101

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Date: 20/10/2016

Before:


LADY JUSTICE BLACK
LORD JUSTICE FLOYD
and
MR JUSTICE BAKER


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


R (child)


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mr Charles Hale QC & Mr Matthew Persson (instructed by Jones Nickolds) for the Appellant
Mr Philip Cayford QC & Mr Tom Finch (instructed by Tilly Bailey & Irvine Solicitors) for the Respondent
Mr David Williams QC & Ms Jacqueline Renton (instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP)  for the Intervenor


Hearing dates: 5th July 2016


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Judgment

Re R (Final) [2016] EWCA Civ 1016.rtf
Financial Remedies Handbook
Financial Remedies Handbook
Formerly entitled the Ancillary Relief Handbook...
£91.99
Family Court Practice, The
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2019 edition due out in May
£559.99
Family Law
Family Law
"the principal (monthly) periodical dealing with...
£389