The mother sought leave to remove the children of the family against the father’s wishes. She wanted to move to New Zealand. The judge at first instance had refused her application. She appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Though the first point was that the welfare of the children was the paramount consideration and second that previous cases decided on other facts could only provide guidelines, the court noted that there was a consistent line of guidance throughout the decisions of the court since 1970.
Judges:
Dillon LJ
Citations:
[1986] 2 FLR 378
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Poel v Poel CA 1970
The mother of a child of two and a half had obtained a custody order with weekly access given to the father. She wished to emigrate with her new husband and the expected child of that marriage to New Zealand. She applied to remove the child . .
Cited – Nash v Nash CA 1973
Davies LJ said: ‘But I emphasise once more that when one parent has been given custody it is a very strong thing for this court to make an order which will prevent the following of a chosen career by the parent who has custody.’ . .
Cited – Chamberlain v de la Mare CA 1983
The mother wanted to take the two infant children to New York with her new husband. The father resisted. At first instance, Balcombe J had considered both Poel and Nash, but said that without wishing to be an iconoclast, he would simply apply the . .
Cited by:
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
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.417801
