In re F (Children): CA 27 Oct 2010

References: [2010] EWCA Civ 1428, [2011] Fam Law 238, [2011] 1 FLR 1382, [2011] 1 FCR 428
Links: Bailii
Coram: Wilson, Rimer, Black LJJ
Ratio: The mother appealed against refusal of a specific issue order requested to allow her to remove the four children with her from Cleveland to Stronsay in the Orkneys. Both parents were GPs and accepted to be excellent parents. She and her new partner had accepted an offer to work as GPs on Stronsay.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Wilson LJ expressed doubt that there should be any substantial distinction made between applications to remove a child from and within the jurisdiction, and also questioned the application of a test of exceptionality before such an internal removal could be refused. Even so, the judge had not erred in holding the change in circumstances involved in a removal to Stronsay to be exceptional, given the difficulties of a journey. The mother’s application had from the start been fraught with difficulty in that the children had always lived in Cleveland and were settled there, and that the move was against their wishes.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – ETS v BT; in re T (A child); In Re L (a child) (internal relocation: shared residence order CA (Bailii, [2009] EWCA Civ 20, [2009] 1 FLR 1157, [2009] 1 FCR 584, [2009] Fam Law 294, [2009] 2 All ER 700)
    The mother appealed against a residence order granting the father equal time with the child, saying that she wished to move away.
    Held: Wall LJ examined the authorities.
    Wall LJ P said: ‘In twenty years time it will not matter a row of . .
  • Cited – In re E (Minors) (Residence Orders: Imposition of Conditions) CA (Times 16-May-97, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 1566, [1997] 2 FLR 638, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 3084)
    A residence order can not be accompanied by an order as to where a parent with care must live in the UK or with whom. An appeal may well arise in which a disappointed applicant will contend that section 13(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989 imposes a . .
  • Cited – In re B (A Child) (Prohibited Steps Order) CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 1055, [2008] Fam Law 17, [2008] 1 FLR 613)
    The mother appealed against a refusal of an order allowing her to remove her son to live with her in Northern Ireland.
    Held: Thorpe LJ said that the relief appropriately to be sought by the objecting parent is a prohibited steps order. . .
  • Cited – In re H (Children) ) (Residence Order: Condition) CA (Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 1338, [2001] 2 FLR 1277, [2001] Fam Law 870, [2001] 2 FLR 77, [2001] 3 FCR 182)
    Thorpe LJ said: ‘What is the rationalisation for a different test to be applied to an application to relocate to Belfast, as opposed to, say, an application to relocate from Gloucester to Dublin? All that the court can do is to remember that in each . .
  • Cited – In re S (A Child) (Residence Order: Condition) CA (Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 847, [2001] 3 FCR 154)
    Thorpe and Clarke LJJ both observed that it was desirable to have some consistency between the principles to be applied as between applications for leave to remove a child from the jurisdiction and for removals within the jurisdiction of the court. . .
  • Cited – Haringey Independent Appeal Panel v M, Regina (on The Application of) CA (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 1103, [2011] PTSR D10, [2010] ELR 823)
    The respondent, M, had applied for judicial review of the dismissal by the Haringey Independent Appeal Panel of her appeal against the refusal of Haringey, as the local education authority, to allow her daughter, MC, to attend the school of her . .
  • Cited – In re S (A Child) (Residence order: condition) (No 2) CA ([2003] 1 FCR 138, Bailii, [2002] EWCA Civ 1795)
    Butler-Sloss LJ P referred to the exceptionality required before restricting a parents right to remove a child within the jurisdiction, saying: ‘the principle enunciated in Re E . . that the court ought not in other than exceptional circumstances to . .
  • Cited – Currey v Currey CA (Times 03-Nov-06, Bailii, [2007] Fam Law 12, [2007] 2 Costs LR 227, [2007] 1 FLR 946, [2006] EWCA Civ 1338)
    Where one party in an ancillary relief claim was not entitled to legal aid, but showed a need for legal representation which he or she could not afford, the court could make an order requiring the other party to make a costs allowance. The nature of . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 05 November 2019
Ref: 427202