Case Study: Successful Appeal of an Order permitting Internal Relocation

Sarah Rose, Associate Solicitor in Judge & Priestley's Family team, acted on behalf of a Father in his appeal against an order permitting the Mother to relocate to a specified town in Cornwall. Sarah was assisted by Celine Jagmohan, Solicitor, and both worked alongside Counsel, Edward Wells, from 1KBW.

This is a summary of the Judgment of Recorder Williams but the full published judgment can be found here.

H (A Boy, Aged 3), Re [2025] EWFC 339 (B) (27 August 2025)

Background

We acted for the Father in relation to his application for a Child Arrangements Order (CAO). Around 8 months after the application was made, the Mother issued an application for permission to relocate with the child to a specified town in Cornwall, a town that the Mother had never visited. The Father opposed this application on the basis that it was not well thought out and there were concerns for the impact it would have on the child’s relationship with his father.

The Mother had prepared four witness statements at the time of the Final Hearing and despite multiple opportunities, she never set out in detail a plan for relocation, never updated the evidence she sought to rely upon, and did not give due consideration to how contact would progress/continue upon her relocation. Unusually, the Mother’s intended relocation included relocating not only with the child, but her partner, other child, maternal grandparents and maternal great grandmother. The Mother’s position was that they would all move or none of them would move, and that there was not an estimated date when they would relocate.

CAFCASS initially opposed the move but after the mother undertaking a 5 day visit to Cornwall with the child (first time they had in fact visited the town they proposed to relocate, CAFCASS changed their recommendation and produced a report of their own accord supporting the move.

At a two day contested hearing in March 2025, District Judge Rahman made orders relating to the Father’s contact with the child on a dual basis, based upon the Mother remaining with the child and based upon her relocation. The Father subsequently appealed the order giving the mother permission to relocate to Cornwall. He did not seek to appeal the contact arrangements, and he agreed the arrangements ordered in the event that the Mother and child did not relocate. He further applied for the specific issue order granting the mother permission to relocate to Cornwall to be stayed pending appeal.

This Order was stayed by the Court on the papers on 15 May 2025. The Father sought to appeal this decision on the basis that the Mother’s plan had been poorly conceived, she had failed to provide evidence that this was in the child’s best interests and the advantages of this move could outweigh the impact of such a move on the child’s relationship with his Father.

A hearing was listed before HHJ Sullivan do deal with permission to appeal. He granted the Father permission on all 5 grounds, that are summarised as follows:

“1st ground – DJ Rahman gave permission for M to relocate without M giving detailed plan to relocate, which was wrong.
2nd ground – DJ Rahman was wrong when even in his own judgment he recognised move might not go ahead.
3rd ground – DJ Rahman conducted a flawed assessment of what was in child’s best interests and gave undue weight to certain factors.
4th ground – DJ Rahman failed to conduct holistic assessment.
5th ground – DJ Rahman applied judicial notice to remedy flaws in the mother’s case.”

Decision Made

Recorder Williams considered the circumstances in which District Judge Rahman had reached his decision at the contested hearing in March and recognised District Judge Rahman’s ability to exercise discretion in difficult circumstances. However, Recorder Williams highlighted that “it is not for the Court to run parties’ cases. The Mother had been legally represented throughout. Her solicitors are responsible for preparing her case, under her instructions, and would have known the detail the Court would require for such a relocation application”.

Recorder Williams decided that all 5 Grounds of Appeal must succeed. Her decision can be summarised in respect of each Ground of Appeal, as follows:

Ground 1

Recorder Williams highlighted that when the Mother first made her application, she had not visited the area in Cornwall at all and by the time of the Final Hearing she had only spent one weekend there. She further agreed with the Father that the evidence relied upon by the Mother was out of date and set out such information that the Mother could have sought to provide to the Court.

Recorder Williams noted that despite the lack of evidence the trial judge “does not refuse the application on the basis of a lack of a clear, well-reasoned and thought out plan”. Therefore “in the circumstances, it was wrong of DJ Rahman to attempt to fill gaps when the evidential basis was not there to do so”.

Ground 2

Recorder Williams states “this leads on to the unfortunate conclusion that DJ Rahman was forced to reach, that this permitted relocation might not take place”. She goes on to say, “I am of the view that the reason the move may not happen is because the plans were extremely limited, with barely any detail, and contingent upon factors outside of the Mother’s control for which the court cannot dictate”.

Recorder Williams concluded “a move cannot be considered to be in the best interests of a child if the proposed move is not realistic well-planned and researched and carefully scrutinised by the court”.

Ground 3

Recorder Williams highlighted concerns that the judge had not referenced the welfare checklist factors within his judgment, nor was there evidence of the balancing exercise having been considered. She commented that “the evidence the Judge relied upon by CAFCASS in his decision goes to contact, rather than the relocation, and the quotation pulled from the reported and quoted in the judgment simply states the Mother’s position rather than being analysed by the Court”.

Ground 4

Recorder Williams states “despite saying he had undertaken a holistic approach…I find that there is insufficient evidence within the ex tempore judgment of that holistic consideration”.

Recorder Williams also found that there was no evidence of consideration of Article 8 rights of the child or both of his parents.

Ground 5

Recorder Williams highlights that “it is the find ground of appeal which brings the matter back full circle to the gaps in the Mother’s evidence and her consequent unrealistic plan for relocation”.

It is recognised by Recorder Williams that the lack of evidence provided by the Mother resulted in DJ Rahman “applying his discretion and taking judicial notice of matters which should have been evidence-based”. Further that evidence provided by the Mother and which DJ Rahman had relied upon was factually incorrect. Accordingly, in the Judge taking judicial notice on evidence that was flawed, incorrect or missing altogether, this was incorrect.

On the basis that the DJ Rahman had gone beyond the evidence and wrongly exercised his discretion in the Mother’s favour, the relocation order was overturned. Following the successful appeal and on the basis of the decision made, the Mother withdrew her application to relocate to avoid a retrial.

Please contact us if you would like more information about the issues raised in this case study or any other family law related matters on 020 8290 0333 or email info@judge-priestley.co.uk.

For further information on our Family law services, please click here.