Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Cases) [2015] EWCA Civ 882
Introduction
The Court of Appeal clarified that over-reliance on Payne vs Payne constitutes an error of law and reaffirmed that decisions must be reached through a holistic welfare analysis. This case is now the main authority for international relocation.
Background to the case
The case involved a dispute between a mother and father over their 12-year-old daughter following their divorce, with cross-applications made by both parents. The mother, who was German, applied for permission to relocate permanently with her daughter to Germany. The father opposed the move, arguing that it would harm his relationship with his daughter, and applied for a child arrangements order to regulate his contact. At first instance, the Family Court in Brighton granted the mother’s application under Section 13 of the Children Act 1989, allowing her to take her daughter to Germany permanently. The order also provided that the daughter would spend a minimum of six weeks each year with her father. The father subsequently appealed this decision.
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
In the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Ryder allowed the father’s appeal on three main points. The court considered whether it should assess the child’s welfare in relation to each parent’s proposals, whether it should undertake a side-by-side comparison of the options, and whether, given the serious consequences, it needed to evaluate whether any interference with rights under Article 8 of the ECHR was proportionate. Both parties agreed that the central question was whether this approach was appropriate in cases under Section 13 of the Children Act 1989.
The Court found that the trial judge had departed from the required welfare-focused approach and had placed excessive reliance on the framework established in Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166, effectively treating it as if it automatically favoured the mother’s relocation application rather than using it as a guiding framework. Consequently, insufficient weight was given to the likely impact on the father-daughter relationship if the child moved to Germany. A proper assessment would have balanced the potential harm to the child under each parent’s proposal. In the end, the Court of Appeal allowed the father’s appeal, set aside the earlier order permitting the mother to relocate permanently, and remitted the case for rehearing before a different judge.
Why Re F (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 882 matters
This decision clarified that international relocation cases must be decided solely on the child’s welfare, not on any presumption in favour of the parent seeking to move. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Payne v Payne should be treated as a guideline, not a rule, and that judges must compare both parents’ proposals side by side, considering the emotional and practical impact of each. The case ensures a more balanced and child-focused approach to relocation decisions.
Practical Implications for Clients
The courts will expect clear evidence showing how the proposed move benefits the child’s welfare, while also fully considering the effect on the non-relocating parent and their contact with the child. Even a well-prepared relocation plan may be refused if it risks damaging the child’s relationship with the other parent. For the parent opposing relocation, the case provides strong support for highlighting the importance of the existing relationship, demonstrating how relocation would weaken it, and urging the court to carry out a thorough comparison of both parents’ arrangements.
Practitioner Takeaways
This case reminds practitioners that relocation cases must be decided through a full welfare-based analysis, not by applying any presumption from Payne v Payne. Practitioners should ensure both parents’ plans are compared side by side, supported by clear evidence about the child’s needs, existing relationships, and realistic contact arrangements.
By: Hanna Barzinji
02/11/2025