Mothers appealed refusal of leave to remove their children from the jurisdiction so that they could make a life with a new partner.
Held: The case of Payne was not directly of effect, because the mother there was returning to her home country. It did show the need to see where the new family would naturally live. The degree of attachment and commitment of the new partners was a factor which could be decisive. It was not a question of putting the mother’s interests before the child but of recognising that if the child was to be with the mother and if the mother’s life would take her abroad, the child should follow in reality. To act otherwise would unduly restrict proper migration.
Judges:
Thorpe, Judge, Sedley LLJ
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 1149, Times 29-Aug-2003, [2003] Fam Law 820, [2003] 2 FLR 1043, [2003] 2 FCR 673
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Payne v Payne; P v P CA 13-Feb-2001
No presumption for Mother on Relocation
The mother applied for leave to return to New Zealand taking with the parties’ daughter aged four. The father opposed the move, saying that allowing the move would infringe his and the child’s right to family life. He had been refused residence.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, International
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.184895
