C v D

Mr Stephen Cobb QC & Ms Nicola Fox (instructed by Sears Tooth) for the Applicant Ms Deborah Eaton QC & Ms Madeleine Reardon (instructed by Messrs Withers LLP) for the Respondent Hearing dates: 14th - 17th February 2011 ____________________

[26] In summary a review of the decisions of this court over the course of the last 30 years demonstrates that relocation cases have been consistently decided upon the application of the following two propositions:

(b) refusing the primary carer's reasonable proposals for the relocation of her family life is likely to impact detrimentally on the welfare of her dependent children. Therefore her application to relocate will be granted unless the court concludes that it is incompatible with the welfare of the children.' [emphasis added]

[16] �the ones that are important in this case are the educational and emotional needs of Y, the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances, and his age and background so far as his life is presently concerned. It seems to me that I�need to remind myself that the welfare of this child is the lodestar by which the court at the end of the day is guided.

[24] In reaching a decision in this case I�have tried to focus on Y's welfare and to postpone the interests of both the parents, however fair and reasonable, to that one consideration. It truly is a case in which the paramountcy of the child's welfare has led to one parent being dealt a crushing disappointment.