Re W (children) (relocation: removal outside jurisdiction) [2011] EWCA Civ 345, [2011] All ER (D) 337 (Mar)
A first instance judgment could only be interfered with if the appeal court was satisfied that the judge below had committed a sufficient error of law in the balancing exercise to vitiate his exercise of discretion.
The questions that had to be determined when considering relocation were whether the mother’s application was genuine and whether her application was realistic. A decision as to relocation fell to be taken on what the court perceived to be in the best interests of the children concerned.
Relocation cases had to be decided upon the application of two propositions:
(a) the welfare of the child had to be the paramount consideration; and
(b) refusing the primary carer’s reasonable proposals for the relocation of her family life was likely to impact detrimentally on the welfare of her dependent children. The balancing exercise had to be carried out on the facts of the particular case. Further, where the motivation of the relocating parent was found by the court to be inimical to welfare, the court had the
