O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns two brothers, referred to as C (approximately ten years old) and F (aged five). Their father is the Appellant, and their mother is the Respondent. By an order dated 17 January 2025, a Deputy High Court Judge ("the Judge") granted the mother permission to permanently remove the children from the jurisdiction to live in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The father's appeal against this order was granted permission by Moylan LJ, and the removal order was stayed pending the appeal hearing.

The Judge's detailed judgment from 8 January 2025, alongside previous judgments from July 2022 and February 2023 (including the published Re O (Children) [2023] EWFC 14), were considered. The father sought to adduce fresh evidence during the appeal, which was not admitted as it failed the test for admissibility and did not materially affect the appeal arguments.

The family is described as "international," with parents holding foreign nationalities and no immediate family or property in England, though the children are British nationals. The parents separated after living together from late 2012 to early 2021. The children live primarily with the mother, with agreed contact arrangements for the father.

Serious domestic abuse by the father towards the mother was found by the court, including physical assaults causing lasting injury, coercive control, and emotional harm to both the mother and children. The father was cautioned by police and faced criminal charges related to domestic abuse, with a trial scheduled for September 2026. The father denied abuse allegations and invoked privilege against self-incrimination to avoid engagement with Family Court Advisers.

The mother applied for permission to relocate the children to Dubai for five years, citing financial necessity and a need to distance herself and the children from the trauma of domestic abuse. Cafcass prepared reports that found the application finely balanced, with some support for relocation. The parties agreed on supervised contact arrangements for the father if relocation was permitted.

The Judge granted the mother's application for relocation, with a further hearing to determine detailed contact arrangements post-relocation. The appeal challenges this decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Judge was correct to grant permission for permanent removal of the children to the UAE despite the absence of jurisdiction and enforcement mechanisms for future disputes in that jurisdiction.
2. Whether the Judge erred in granting permission despite the lack of a detailed and settled relocation plan, including employment, schooling, accommodation, and contact arrangements.
3. Whether the Judge's assessment of the children's best interests was flawed, including alleged undue weight to the mother's domestic abuse claims and insufficient consideration of the impact on the father-child relationship.
4. Whether the Judge failed to conduct a proper holistic and proportionality assessment of the competing options for the children.
5. Whether the Judge erred in permitting permanent relocation without determining the detailed child arrangements for contact with the father post-move.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Judge failed to consider the proportionality of the relocation decision, particularly regarding the lack of effective jurisdiction in the UAE and the impact on the father-child relationship.
• The Judge was overly influenced by sympathy for the mother as a victim of domestic abuse, which improperly affected the welfare assessment.
• The mother's relocation plan was inconsistent, unclear, and lacked necessary detail regarding employment, schooling, accommodation, and contact arrangements.
• The Judge did not adequately consider or apply the threefold test from Re A and Re K concerning risks of breach and enforcement in non-Hague Convention countries.
• The decision to grant relocation without finalizing contact arrangements was flawed and prejudicial to the father.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Judge was best placed to assess the parties, having observed their evidence over multiple hearings.
• The Judge's welfare evaluation intrinsically included proportionality considerations within the broader best interests assessment.
• The mother was an honest and conscientious parent with reasonable and realistic plans to relocate, seeking respite from trauma caused by domestic abuse.
• The mother remained committed to promoting ongoing contact between the father and children despite the history of abuse.
• The father's failure to provide proposals for contact post-relocation justified the Judge’s approach to allow further submissions before finalizing arrangements.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Re O (Children) [2023] EWFC 14	Privilege against self-incrimination in family proceedings	Used to reject father's claim of privilege as overstated; father required to advance case normally.
V v M [2020] EWHC 488 (Fam)	Distillation of relevant appellate authorities on relocation and welfare	Reproduced and applied to guide welfare analysis and relocation assessment.
WS v KL [2020] EWHC 2448	Relocation and welfare principles	Referenced in support of relocation legal framework.
GT v RJ [2018] EWFC 26	Relocation jurisprudence	Referenced for legal context on relocation by unmarried parent.
Re B [2015] EWCA Civ 1302	Relocation to Dubai by unmarried parent; welfare considerations	Noted similarity to instant case; informed consideration of relocation risks.
Re K (Removal from Jurisdiction) [1999] 2 FLR 1084	Risk assessment for removal to non-Hague Convention country	Referenced regarding risk of breach and enforcement issues in UAE.
Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Case) [2015] EWCA Civ 882	Requirement to scrutinise proportionality in international relocation cases	Invoked by appellant to argue for proportionality analysis.
Re C (A Child) (Internal Relocation) [2015] EWCA Civ 1305	Application of Article 8 ECHR and proportionality in relocation	Preferred approach by court; proportionality integrated within welfare assessment.
Re CB (International relocation: domestic abuse: child arrangements) [2017] EWFC 39	Relocation involving domestic abuse	Distinguished on facts; used to illustrate differing circumstances.
Re A (A Child) (Relocation) [2020] EWHC 2878 (Fam)	Relocation and domestic abuse considerations	Referenced in context of domestic abuse impact on relocation decisions.
A v B [2025] EWHC 764 (Fam)	Enforcement and jurisdiction issues in UAE; domestic abuse context	Considered expert evidence on UAE law; supported findings on jurisdictional limitations.
G v B [2025] EWHC 122 (Fam)	Expert evidence on UAE family law reforms	Referenced for cautious optimism on UAE jurisdiction but acknowledged as untested.
K v K [2011] EWCA Civ 793	Welfare checklist and paramountcy in relocation	Confirmed as governing test for relocation applications.
Re F [2012] EWCA Civ 1364	Welfare checklist application in relocation	Referenced as part of settled law on relocation.
Re B-S (Children) (Adoption Order: Leave to Oppose) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146	Holistic welfare evaluation	Supported approach of global welfare assessment in relocation cases.
Re G (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation) [2013] EWCA Civ 965	Welfare evaluation principles	Reinforced comprehensive welfare assessment approach.
Re M (Removal from Jurisdiction: Adjournment) [2010] EWCA Civ 888	Consideration of risk and safeguards in removal cases	Invoked regarding need to consider magnitude of risk and safeguards.
Re B (A Child)(Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33	Article 8 interference in public law cases	Found less relevant to private law relocation cases.
Re H-W (Children) [2022] UKSC 17	Article 8 interference in care proceedings	Also considered less relevant to private law relocation context.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed review of the Judge's findings and the applicable law. It acknowledged that the Judge did not materially misdirect himself on the law, correctly applying the welfare checklist under section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 and relevant case law concerning international relocation and domestic abuse.

The court preferred the approach in Re C (Internal Relocation), whereby proportionality is inherently considered within the welfare balancing exercise rather than as a separate step. It found that the Judge was aware of and addressed the proportionality of the interference with Article 8 rights of the father and children.

The Judge's findings on domestic abuse were accepted as unchallenged and central to the welfare assessment. The court noted the chronic and serious nature of the abuse, its ongoing impact on the mother and children, and the father's lack of insight or remorse. The Judge's application of PD12J Family Procedure Rules 2010 was appropriate and thorough.

Regarding the relocation plan, the court accepted the Judge's view that the mother's plan, though lacking some detail, was coherent and realistic given the protracted litigation. The Judge properly accounted for the uncertainty caused by the lengthy proceedings.

The court recognized the significant risk to the father-child relationship posed by relocation but balanced this against the harmful impact of the father's behavior and the dysfunctional status quo. The Judge reasonably concluded that the mother’s commitment to promoting contact post-relocation mitigated some concerns.

The court rejected the appellant's reliance on the threefold test from Re A and Re K as primarily applicable to temporary removal applications and found the Judge had adequately considered risks and consequences in the permanent relocation context.

Finally, the court found no error in the Judge’s decision to grant relocation before finalizing detailed contact arrangements, given the father’s failure to provide proposals and the provision for a further hearing to address these matters.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL, upholding the Judge's order granting the mother permission to permanently remove the children to the UAE.

The direct effect is that the mother may proceed with the relocation as ordered, subject to further court determination of the detailed child arrangements for contact with the father post-relocation. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the father-child relationship despite the relocation and noted the mother's expressed commitment to this.

No new legal precedent was established; the decision affirms the established approach to balancing welfare factors, proportionality, and domestic abuse considerations in international relocation cases involving children.