Integrated Proportionality & Domestic-Abuse Risk in International Relocation
A Commentary on O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation) [2025] EWCA Civ 888

1. Introduction

The Court of Appeal’s decision in O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation) marks a pivotal point in the jurisprudence on international child relocation where serious domestic abuse and Article 8 proportionality arguments collide. Two brothers (“C”, 10 and “F”, 5) were at the centre of a bitter dispute: their mother obtained leave to relocate them permanently from England to the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”); their father appealed. Recorder Samuels KC’s first-instance judgment was upheld, and the Court of Appeal (Baker, Underhill & Moylan LJJ) used the opportunity to clarify:

• How proportionality fits within the welfare analysis; and
• How PD12J domestic-abuse guidance must be woven into relocation decisions, even where the destination is a non-Hague Convention state.

The commentary below unpacks the case, the legal reasoning, and its likely ripple effects.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge:

• Applied the correct welfare-paramountcy test under s.1 Children Act 1989;
• Was entitled to give substantial weight to the mother’s need for “geographical and emotional space” after chronic domestic abuse;
• Carried out, within his welfare analysis, an implicit yet sufficient proportionality assessment under Article 8 ECHR – no discrete “cross-check” is mandatory;
• Was not obliged to finalise detailed contact mechanics before granting relocation, given the father’s refusal to engage and the mother’s proven commitment to contact; and
• Was entitled to rely on his prior and current findings that the father’s abuse remained ongoing, unsafe, and inadequately acknowledged.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

• V v M [2020] EWHC 488 (Fam) – provided the distilled relocation principles adopted by the Judge.
• Re B [2015] EWCA Civ 1302 – analogous unmarried-parent relocation to Dubai; reinforced welfare paramountcy.
• Re K (1999) & Re A [2014] 1 FLR 643 – the “three-element” test for temporary removal to non-Convention states. The father leaned on these to emphasise enforcement risks; the Court considered them an “aide-mémoire” but not decisive in permanent-relocation cases.
• Re F (A Child) [2015] & Re C (Internal Relocation) [2016] – competing views on whether a separate proportionality cross-check is needed. The Court endorsed Black LJ’s integrated approach.
• Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448 – cornerstone authority on coercive control; underpinned the gravity of the father’s abuse.
• Domestic-abuse procedural code: PD12J FPR 2010 – explicitly imported by the Judge to shape risk assessment.

3.2 Core Legal Reasoning

1. Paramountcy & Welfare Checklist
   The Judge cycled through all s.1(3) factors, noting: children’s wishes (they love their father), harm/risk (continuing abuse), ability to meet needs (mother’s plan), and the stark cultural and logistical shift awaiting them in the UAE.
2. Integrated Proportionality
   Drawing heavily on Black LJ in Re C, the Court affirmed that:
   “A conscientious welfare evaluation naturally incorporates proportionality; a separate ‘cross-check’ risks duplication and confusion.”
   Judges should, however, signpost within their reasoning that Article 8 rights were weighed.
3. Domestic Abuse as a Relocation Factor
   Abuse findings were not a mere background colour but an operational risk assessment variable under PD12J. The Court approved the Judge’s bespoke list (at §94 of the CA judgment) of questions for relocation cases featuring abuse, emphasising:
   • Ongoing/coercive abuse;
   • Protective measures available in both jurisdictions;
   • Victim’s psychological recovery as legitimate child-welfare factor.
4. Jurisdictional & Enforcement Vacuum in the UAE
   Expert evidence (A. Tribe) showed no reliable welfare or enforcement jurisdiction for unmarried parents. The Court accepted this elevated the stakes but was not fatal because:
   • Mother’s credibility and litigation history demonstrated a low breach risk;
   • Recital inviting UAE courts to recognise the English order could nonetheless be included;
   • Ongoing contact would, for now, remain professionally supervised regardless of jurisdiction.
5. Deferred Contact Mechanics
   Granting relocation while parking the minutiae of contact was justified: father’s blanket opposition meant concrete proposals were unavailable; the post-appeal hearing before the same judge preserves procedural fairness.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

This judgment sets two clear markers:

• Proportionality Clarified – For relocation (external or internal) no separate proportionality stage is needed; judges should weave Article 8 considerations into the welfare narrative and simply make that explicit.
• Domestic-Abuse Integration – The Court provided a template (questions at CA §94) for assessing abuse-related risk in relocation cases. Expect trial judges to cite and apply this list in future disputes.
• Non-Hague Destinations – While enforcement difficulties remain potent, the Court signalled that they do not create an automatic bar; a robust credibility assessment of the relocating parent can tip the balance.
• Procedural Economy – Allowing relocation before finalising contact may gain traction where a party’s non-engagement blocks progress.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Article 8 ECHR – Protects family life. Any court order interfering with that relationship (e.g., children moving overseas, reducing contact) must be “proportionate” – i.e., no more than necessary to achieve the legitimate aim (child’s welfare).
• PD12J FPR 2010 – A Practice Direction that tells judges how to handle private-law disputes involving domestic abuse. It mandates early fact-finding, risk assessment, and protective measures.
• Section 1(3) Welfare Checklist – A statutory list of factors (child’s wishes, needs, effect of any change, etc.) that the court must consider before making orders about children.
• Non-Hague Convention State – A country not signed up to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. Orders made in England cannot be automatically enforced there, increasing abduction or breach risks.
• The “Three-Element” Test – From Re A: magnitude of breach risk, magnitude of the consequences, and available safeguards. Originally for temporary holiday cases, now treated as a helpful checklist rather than a rigid test in permanent-relocation disputes.
• Integrated Proportionality – The concept that proportionality analysis is embedded within, rather than separate from, the welfare assessment.

5. Conclusion

O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation) crystallises the Court of Appeal’s stance that:

1. The welfare of the child remains the “only authentic test” in relocation cases.
2. Proportionality is an intrinsic part of that welfare calculus; no bolt-on stage is mandated.
3. Domestic abuse findings must be actively factored into relocation risk-management under PD12J, with a structured set of questions now available.
4. Relocation to a non-Hague state is not automatically precluded by enforcement uncertainties; judicial trust in the relocating parent – evidenced and reasoned – can legitimately outweigh those concerns.

For practitioners, the case demands meticulous evidence on both abuse-related risk and the relocating parent’s genuineness; for judges, it provides welcome clarity on proportionality and a ready-made checklist for abuse-laden relocation disputes. Ultimately, the decision underscores that the family justice system will privilege child safety and holistic welfare, even when that calls for courageous orders permitting relocation far from these shores.