Kim Beatson & Victoria Brown provide an update on leave to remove
- The recent case regarding external relocation, M v F [2016] EWHC 3194 (Fam), confirmed that the children’s welfare was the paramount consideration and that the factors considered in Payne were “merely a checklist of factors which will or may need to be weighed in the balance”.
- In Re R (a child) (domestic abduction) [2016] EWCA Civ 1016, [2016] the court rejected the submission that the approach taken in international abduction cases should be adopted in domestic abduction cases.
Recent cases have rejected the idea that Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166, [2001] All ER (D) 142 (Feb) sets out any presumptions in deciding relocation cases. They have emphasised that the only real principle to be taken from Payne is that the welfare of the child is paramount, whether it is statutorily required or not. These cases have focused the jurisprudence on the welfare of the child and the need to carry out a “holistic valuative analysis” taking all factors relevant to relocation into account. K v K (Children permanent removal
