E v L

[2] On appeal the father was represented by Ms Keegan QC with Ms M Kane. The mother was represented by Mr McCreanor QC with Ms M Connolly and the Official Solicitor was represented by Ms J Pauley. I am grateful to all counsel for their helpful submissions.

[3] In the normal course of events appeals from the Family Care Centre to the High Court are not heard by way of rehearing. However for various reasons an unusual amount of time has passed since the decision of the learned trial judge in May 2014 and the circumstances of both families had changed. In these circumstances I heard this appeal by way of rehearing. That is not the way in which they will be typically dealt with.

[4] There are various factual disputes between the parties about their relationship and its breakdown which are of limited relevance in deciding this case. I do not intend to deal with all of these issues in this judgment. That will still leave some areas of controversy to be resolved.

[9] It is clear from the evidence that the mother had a good relationship with her late mother-in-law and that her sudden death has added to the complexities of the case.

[12] It is the father's case that he and the mother share the care of S. She accepts that he is a good father and that he has exceeded her expectations since they separated. She further accepts that relocation to the United States would greatly affect the relationship between S and his father � instead of seeing him every week and staying with him he would be on the other side of the Atlantic. While she would have extended family support which S would enjoy, S would never have the same relationship with his father as he does now.