header-logo header-logo

Moving forward?

21 July 2011 / Jonathan Herring
Issue: 7475 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Does MK v CK mark a new start for child relocation, asks Jonathan Herring

A couple separate. The children live with the mother and have contact with the father. The mother applies to the court for leave to move with the children to Canada. What should be done?

Cases of this kind have become increasingly common given rising rates of international travel and migration. Since 1991, the law in this area has been dominated by the decision of the Court of Appeal in the infamous decision in Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166, [2001] All ER (D) 142 (Feb). It held, uncontroversially, that the welfare of the children was the court’s paramount consideration in deciding such applications. However, the court went on to issue guidance in applying the welfare principle in these cases. Where the proposed relocation of the resident parent (normally the mother) was reasonable then the court would normally grant leave to relocate. The proposal would be regarded as reasonable where there was a good reason for it (eg the mother was

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll