Ms D v Mr D (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant seeks leave to relocate the primary residence of the parties' two children, Child A (born 2016) and Child B (born 2017), from their current home in The Region to The City, together with ancillary custody and access orders under s.11 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. The Respondent opposes the proposed relocation.

The parties were married in 2013, relocated to The Region in 2014, and have lived separate and apart since October 2021. The Appellant has recently taken up employment with Company B in The City. The Respondent occupies a senior role with Company A and acts as an engaged, flexible, hands-on parent.

During judicial separation proceedings the Appellant issued a notice of motion in March 2020 seeking relocation. A Psychologist was appointed under s.47 of the Family Law Act 1995 and prepared reports in February 2021 and April 2024, each recommending that the children's residence remain in The Region. An interim consent order in October 2021 implemented recommendations in the 2021 report. The Circuit Court refused the Appellant's relocation application; the present appeal challenges that refusal. The judgment below was delivered by Judge Barrett on 10 December 2025.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant should be granted leave to relocate the children's primary residence from The Region to The City.
2. Whether ancillary custody and access orders pursuant to s.11 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 should be made to regulate custody and access consequent upon any relocation.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The current family home in The Region is unsuitable due to limited local amenities, restricted green space, proximity to a main road and industrial estate, and a lack of visitors.
• Employment prospects in The Region are limited; securing work in The City (salary stated at €35,000) necessitates relocation.
• Childcare costs and arrangements require relocation to The City where maternal family support and proximity to medical facilities (for Child B) exist.
• Confirmed school places near the proposed City residence and greater availability of extracurricular activities in The City will benefit the children.
• Past alleged agreement by the Respondent to relocate to The City was relied upon by the Appellant.

Respondent's Arguments

• The current home forms part of a larger residential estate; the children have local friends and are participating in extracurricular activities in The Region.
• Employment opportunities exist in The Region; the Appellant is not unemployable locally.
• Childcare and support are readily available from the Respondent, who is a willing, flexible, and engaged carer; reliance on maternal family in The City would diminish paternal involvement.
• The Psychologist's reports and oral evidence recommend against relocation on welfare and stability grounds.
• Any alleged prior agreement to relocate was not established on the balance of probabilities.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Barrett applied the paramount criterion of the children's best interests and had regard to statutory guidance (including s.31 principles as referenced in the cited authorities). The court reiterated that the onus rests on the relocating parent to establish that the move is in the children's best interests and that there is no presumption for or against relocation. Expert welfare evidence under s.47 is to be weighed but not accorded special status; if disregarded, reasons must be given.

The court evaluated the facts against these principles. Key factual findings included:

• The Psychologist's February 2021 and April 2024 reports recommended that the children remain in The Region; her oral evidence reaffirmed concerns about stability, the importance of existing school supports (especially for Child A), the disruption a change of school would cause, and doubts about the Appellant's motivations and planning.
• The current arrangements provide shared day-to-day care with the Appellant as primary carer but substantial, engaged involvement by the Respondent and extended paternal family close by.
• The Appellant holds equity in a City property and the family home in The Region is unencumbered; no evidence showed an inability to secure alternative local accommodation.
• No independent evidence substantiated the Appellant's claimed childcare cost figures or asserted medical-treatment advantages in The City for Child B.
• Proposed City arrangements relied heavily on maternal family support and left material uncertainties regarding accommodation, the Appellant's working hours/flexibility, and the adequacy of the welfare framework post-move.

Applying the legal principles to the facts, the court concluded that the proposed relocation would: (a) materially diminish the Respondent's mid-week involvement and active parenting role, effectively converting joint custody into practical sole custody by the Appellant; (b) require school changes detrimental to Child A's established support needs; (c) disrupt friendships, extracurricular continuity, and paternal family contacts; and (d) rest on insufficiently detailed and unsubstantiated welfare arrangements. The court therefore found the relocation was not shown to be in the children's best interests.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED; APPLICATION TO RELOCATE REFUSED.

Direct effect: The children will continue to reside in The Region; the existing schooling, extracurricular arrangements, and access/status quo regarding parental involvement are to continue. The court will hear the parties on costs. The decision applies established best-interests principles to the facts of this case and does not purport to establish new precedent.