Judicial approach to international child relocation applications

In SA v JR [2025] EWFC 279 (B) a family court judge refused an application by a mother to relocate with her six-year-old child to Dubai. The mother’s husband had moved to Dubai after securing employment there in late 2024. The mother sought to join her husband in Dubai with the child. The child’s father opposed the move and sought a share care arrangement in this jurisdiction.

Dubai is not a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention on Child Abduction nor the 1996 Hague Convention on Parental Responsibility and Protection of Children. The Judge referred to this in his judgment, as it meant that the case had to be considered by a Circuit Judge. This impacts on the available remedies to the parties if the move had been permitted and if there had been a breach of any order made in this jurisdiction. 

The lack of a bilateral treaty between two jurisdictions usually leads to the instruction of an expert witness to provide a report on the availability and efficacy of protective measures to ensure compliance with orders. However, in this case the Judge noted that the issue was not central to his decision. In cases involving ‘non-Hague’ jurisdictions, it is generally well advised to obtain expert evidence as to a) the enforceability of any orders made in England and Wales in the other jurisdiction; and b) where necessary, the availability of protective measures in the other jurisdiction.

Applicable Law and Principles

The judgment summarises the applicable law in relation to international relocation cases and references the recent Court of Appeal decision in Re O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation) [2025] EWCA Civ 888. The judge emphasises again, as other judgments have repeatedly over the past decade or so, that the only true test is whether the relocation is in the child’s best interests. When considering whether a relocation is in a child’s best interests, the court starts from the principle that there is no presumption either in favour of, or against, granting permission to relocate. Equally, there is no automatic preference given to the primary carer. Instead, the court must conduct a global and holistic evaluation of the case, avoiding any linear or sequential approach. This means it should not begin with the relocation application and only turn to alternatives if that request is refused. Once an application is before the court, the judge has the discretion to make whatever order they consider best promotes the child’s welfare, regardless of the specific proposals put forward by the parties.

The child’s welfare remains the paramount consideration, informed by principles in the Children Act 1989. Although section 1(2A) does not apply directly to relocation cases, it establishes that a child’s welfare is usually furthered by the involvement of both parents, unless evidence shows otherwise. Accordingly, the court must consider the child’s right to maintain personal relationships and direct contact with each parent, unless doing so would be contrary to their interests. The Article 8 rights of parents are relevant but are generally subordinate to the child’s own rights, which carry the greatest weight. Similarly, the further a family member is removed from the child, the less significance the court will attach to their rights.

Practical Impact and Evidence

A key factor for the court is the emotional and practical impact of a move. It must consider the consequences of reduced contact with the “left-behind” parent, the realism of the proposals for preserving that relationship, and also the impact on the applicant if they are required to remain in England. Ultimately, the question is how each of these factors affects the child. The stability and continuity of the child’s circumstances are central, and the more established the child’s ties to the proposed country of relocation, the less disruptive the move may appear. The court must also consider its own jurisdictional powers, including whether enforceable orders could be made abroad, the availability of reciprocal enforcement, and whether financial arrangements for maintaining parental contact can be secured. International frameworks such as the 1980 and 1996 Hague Conventions may therefore play a role in ensuring practical safeguards.

In all relocation cases a court is likely to be assisted by a section 7 report by either CAFCASS or an Independent Social Worker (ISW). If the child is of an age where their wishes and feelings will be taken into account, then this will be a factor for the court, but rarely decisive. This judgment makes clear that the recommendations of the ISW, which opposed the planned relocation, were persuasive. The social worker’s recommendation is not binding on a judge however and there are examples of a judge making orders against the recommendations of the section 7 report.

Requirements for Relocation Plans

For an applicant seeking to relocate with a child, the court expects to see a carefully thought-through and realistic plan. The proposal must go beyond general intentions and provide concrete details about how the child’s day-to-day life will be managed in the new environment. Central to this is identifying where the applicant and child will live and showing that the housing arrangements are stable and secure. Education is another critical element: the plan should include information on suitable schools, how they have been researched, and why they are appropriate for the child’s needs.

Financial security must also be addressed. The applicant must demonstrate how they will provide for themselves and the child, setting out reliable sources of income or employment and ensuring that the child’s welfare will not be undermined by economic uncertainty. The court will also look at the availability of support networks, both in England and in the proposed country of relocation, since these can provide vital emotional, social, and practical stability. Where relevant, details of healthcare provision in the new country should also be included, particularly if the child has any specific medical needs.

Equally important are the arrangements for maintaining the child’s relationship with the other parent. The court will expect clear, realistic, and workable proposals that set out how direct and indirect contact will be preserved. This may include a mix of video calls, phone contact, and in-person visits—whether in England, in the new country, or even in a third location where travel is more practical. Proposals should also take into account the financial costs of contact and, where possible, identify how those costs will be met or shared. Ultimately, the credibility of the relocation application will depend on how well these practical considerations are addressed in a comprehensive and realistic plan.

The child’s relationship with the ‘left behind’ parent is a critical consideration for the court in a relocation application. In this particular judgment it weighed significantly against a move. The reality is that a relocation will almost always impact negatively upon this relationship. The key question for the court is whether this factor, considered holistically with other relevant considerations both in favour and against a move outweighs the benefits to the child of a move.

If responding to an application, then a positive case should be made for the child remaining in this jurisdiction and not just a negative case against the relocation. The strength of the relationship with the child will be an important factor and the impact on that relationship of the move will concern the court. If there are practical or logistical difficulties with the applicant’s proposals then these should be highlighted, together with any particular needs of the child that might mitigate against a move.

International relocation cases are among the most difficult that a family court deals with because the result is often binary. However, the clear message from recent decisions is that the only relevant test is what is in the individual child’s best interests.