Court rejects mother's internal relocation application prioritising child's relationship with father

In Re K (Internal Relocation) [2025] EWFC 285 (B), Mr Recorder O'Grady delivered a comprehensive judgement that rejected a mother's application to relocate internally with her three-year-old son, instead ordering substantial contact arrangements that would allow the child to maintain meaningful relationships with both parents.

Case Background and Applications

The case concerned K, born in 2022, whose parents separated in May 2023. Following the separation, K initially spent every Friday to Monday with his father until arrangements ceased in December 2023. The father's application for a Child Arrangements Order, filed in January 2024, was significantly complicated when the mother applied in March 2025 to relocate K to the North West area, citing isolation in Nottingham and her husband's family connections.

Critical Assessment of Cafcass Analysis

The court delivered a particularly robust critique of the Family Court Adviser's analysis, identifying multiple deficiencies that undermined her recommendation supporting relocation. Mr Recorder O'Grady found the FCA's approach "linear" and lacking holistic evaluation, noting she failed to properly consider what K would lose through relocation or adequately challenge the mother's narrative.

The judgement highlighted the FCA's acceptance of unsubstantiated claims about support networks and employment opportunities in the North West area, without corroborating evidence from the husband's family or regarding his work prospects. The court found the FCA had not explored realistic alternatives for the family remaining in Nottingham.

Welfare Analysis and Realistic Options

Applying the welfare checklist under section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, the court identified seven potential arrangements for K's future care, ultimately focusing on three realistic options after discounting scenarios involving both parents relocating or the child living primarily with the father.

The court accepted that relocation would benefit the mother emotionally and that K would be closer to his stepfather's extended family. However, these advantages were significantly outweighed by the disadvantages, particularly the impact on K's relationship with his father.

Impact of Distance on Paternal Relationship

Central to the court's reasoning was the detrimental effect of fortnightly journeys between the North West and Nottingham on young K. The court found these journeys would be "extremely onerous," affecting the quality of time spent with the father and impacting K's educational development. The distance would prevent the father from meaningful engagement with K's schooling, attending significant events, or providing homework support.

The judgement emphasised that proximity would enable both parents to exercise informed parental responsibility, particularly regarding educational decisions and medical appointments. The court identified these "benefits of K staying in Nottingham" as crucial welfare considerations.

Substantial Contact Arrangements

Rather than the equal time arrangement sought by the father, the court ordered a graduated approach designed to build K's relationship with his father whilst maintaining stability with his primary carer. The arrangements provide for K to spend Fridays to Mondays with his father in week one, and Thursdays to Fridays in week two, expanding once K starts primary school.

This substantial contact arrangement reflects the court's recognition of the importance of K's paternal relationships, particularly given the apparent absence of meaningful maternal extended family connections. The court noted that a previous Cafcass officer had recommended relatively high levels of contact, reinforcing the significance of the father-child relationship.

Legal Principles and Relocation Law

The judgement reaffirmed that there is no distinction between internal and external relocation cases, with child welfare remaining paramount. Whilst acknowledging the factors identified in Payne v Payne, the court emphasised these are not prescriptive but merely considerations to be weighed holistically.

The decision demonstrates the courts' willingness to scrutinise relocation applications rigorously, particularly where the evidence base is insufficient and where substantial harm to important parental relationships would result from geographical separation.