MC v FG (Relocation) [2024] EWFC 204 (B)
This case concerns a dispute regarding the international relocation of children and the assessment of their welfare under the Children Act 1989
The facts of the case
This case concerned a mother, father and their two children (aged 7 and 5) from County Y, in Europe. Since 2015, the father lived principally in Auckland. The Mother and the children came to join him in January 2023, but by September 2023, the parent’s relationship had broken down.
This case arose following Mother’s application to relocate with the children to County Y and the Father subsequently opposing the international relocation application and seeking orders for the children to remain in this country, and for them to spend equal time with both parents.
Cafcass involvement
There was a Section 7 Report in this case and HHJ Vincent stated in his judgment ‘it is somewhat of a luxury to have a section 7 report’, as the case presented with zero safeguarding concerns. The Cafcass officer did meet with the children, but did not discuss the issue of relocation nor did she explore their wishes and feelings about where they might want to live or about the time they might wish to spend with each parent. The children were also not aware of the ongoing proceedings.
The Cafcass Officer highlighted all relevant factors and clearly set out recommendations in the event the children remain living in Auckland or return to Country Y. The Cafcass Officer was not, however, able to make a recommendation as to which of those options she regarded as being in the best interests of the children, and this position remained unchanged during her oral evidence.
Mother’s position – ‘Survival Mode’
- She had supported the father’s choice throughout the marriage to work in Auckland.
- She explained how she was very anxious about moving to Auckland but that Father had reassured her that if it did not work, then they could return to Country Y as a family.
- M had obtained work as a pharmacist in the same hospital where the father works, working 4 days a week. She got on well with colleagues and made friends, but the judge found that these friendships were not the same as the friendships she had at home with friends from childhood.
- The Judge described Mother as being in ‘Survival mode’ whilst living in Auckland.
- The Judge acknowledged that the Mother’s priority was the children, and she would do whatever it took to meet their needs.
- The Judge stated that he ‘considered it ungenerous and unfair for it to be suggested to her that in bringing her application she was seeking to punish the father, that she wished to be ‘compensated’, or that she was knowingly putting her own desire to return home before her children’s best interests’.
Father’s position – the move would ‘fundamentally disrupt and change their relationship with him’.
- The decisions for him to work in Auckland and then bring the children to Auckland to be educated and raised were made jointly by them both and were made looking at the best interests of the children and the family. Father maintained that their plan had always been to settle in this country.
- The Father acknowledged that before the Mother and the children came to Auckland, she had been their primary carer, but this had shifted when they moved in and started living in the same house.
- To move them to Country Y would ‘fundamentally disrupt and change their relationship with him, to their detriment’.
The decision – the welfare of the children
HHJ Vincent carefully went through the welfare checklist and ultimately reached the determination that the Mother should be permitted to relocate to Country Y with the children. It was considered that the children’s welfare was best met by their relocation.
HHJ Vincent stated ‘There are gains and losses in respect to each option, but weighing all the factors in the balance, my clear conclusion is that the children’s welfare is best met by them relocating to Country Y’.
Father’s contact with the children
In terms of contact between the children and their Father, the Judge summarised the following:
- ‘I am confident that the parents, ably assisted by their legal representatives, will be able to work out the arrangements for the children to spend time with each of their parents. Once the children regain habitual residence in Country Y any disputes that may arise over these arrangements will need to be resolved in Country Y.
- It is anticipated that the father will be able to visit for some weekends or short days when he has leave during term time, so he may be able to pick up the children from school occasionally or come to a school concert or sports day, but in general it will be the children’s mother who is with the children day to day. The father of course will see this as a loss for him, but it must also be recognised that caring full-time for school age children whilst holding down a job brings its own demands. It is right that the children get the chance to have some ‘down-time’ and holidays with their mother as well as their father.
- I would suggest that the parents split the Christmas and Easter school holidays, which are around two weeks long, (alternating so that the children take it in turns to celebrate Christmas and Easter with each parent).
- My starting point would also be an equal split of the summer holidays, which in Country Y is twelve weeks long. This is because I doubt the father would in fact be able to take six weeks off from the NHS during the summer holidays, and if he could take that amount of holiday, it may be preferable for him to use some of that time to spend time with the children during term times so that he sees them more regularly throughout the year. However, I have not had detailed information about the father’s work schedule or intentions around this. I have seen a letter from his work indicating that he would be afforded flexibility in his work to accommodate childcare needs. If the parties agreed in all the circumstances that there should be a shift in the father’s favour, I wouldn’t have a difficulty with that, although I would agree more with the mother’s suggestion of seven weeks out of twelve rather than anymore, for the reasons given.
- These proceedings mark the end of a difficult period in these parents’ lives. It is to their credit that despite the challenges they have faced, they have at all times sought to put their children first. As a consequence, they are the parents of two delightful, engaging, settled, and happy children, who are surrounded by love. I have full confidence in these parents to continue to be the very best parents they can be to their children. I wish them all the best for the future’.
How we can help
Rina Mistry is a Senior Associate in our Family Law team, advising on a wide range of family law work, particularly specialising in private children’s law, children matters and domestic abuse.
At Nelsons, we understand the emotional and legal challenges that come with family disputes and international relocation. Our team of experienced family law solicitors is here to provide compassionate and expert advice, helping you navigate these difficult times.
If you need any advice concerning the subjects discussed above, please contact us and we will be happy to discuss your circumstances in more detail and give you more information about the services that our solicitors can provide along with details of our hourly rates.
For more information or advice, please call Rina or another member of our team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or contact us via our online form.
This article is for information only and does not constitute legal/financial advice. Please contact us for advice tailored to your specific position. Some of the content presented on our website has been generated with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). We ensure that all AI-generated content meets our high standards for accuracy and relevance.
