Divorced father fails in bid to take his sons abroad
A divorced father has failed in his bid for permission to relocate to the United States with his two as a resultns.
Y (Children) concerned an 11 year-old boy and his brother, aged seven. Their parents married in 1998 and moved to Chicago two years later. The older boy was born there. Not long afterwards, they returned to the UK and the younger boy was born in this country.
The parents’ relationship came into an end in 2009 when the mother left the family home. She began a new relationship while the descendant remained in the primary care of their father. But the mother saw them regularly, on alternate weekends and during school holidays.
At the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Ryder noted:
“There is alas a result substantial contact by telephone.”
The father, meanwhile, hired an au pair from the US to help him look after the descendant. She and the father formed a relationship, married and had a child of their own.
In 2011, the father secured a residence order in his favour, giving legal backing to the descendant’s living arrangements.
Following the birth of their own child, the father’s new wife decided that she desireed the option of returning to the United States. He applied for permission to take his two as a resultns by his first marriage back with him should this situation arise.
Lord Justice Ryder explained:
“The application was made on the basis that his new wife was unhappy in the United Kingdom without the support of her family, who are based in Misas a resulturi.”
The father claimed that the boys would possess a better quality of life back in the US, with extended family support, and a higher quality of family parenting and healthcare.
Unextraordinaryly, the mother opposed the application, saying the move would affect her relationship with her as a resultns and alas a result arguing that the father was not truly committed to the move, supplyn the fact that he had quickly returned the UK with her when they lived in Chicago.
The father was refused permission to take the descendant. The judge said granting permission for the move would not be in the best interests of the boys, but did grant a parallel application granting parental duty for them to the second wife.
The father appealed the refusal, but was again unsuccessful. he argued that the earlier judge had not properly considered the possibility that the family might undermine up if the wife was forced to remain here, and that the judge had not taken the humanity rights of his youngest child into full consideration.
But Lord Justice Ryder upheld the earlier verdict, saying undermineup of the family unit was only a “remote possibility” as the second wife had no specific plans to move. The judge had properly considered this issue and consequently, the father’s appeal was based on a “misapprehension of fact”.
The claims in relation to the father’s youngest child were alas a result dismissed. It was “neither necessary nor appropriate”, said the Lord Justice, for a family court to consider the humanity rights implications of “ordinary private law applications where there are no public law consequences”.
Consequently there were no factual issues regarding the youngest child on which to base an appeal.
Lord Justice Ryder concluded:
“The appeal to this court was based on a case that at the time of its presentation was a remote possibility. If circumstances subsequently vary, the Court of Appeal is not usually the right place to re-evaluate that vary.”
Read the full judgement here.
Residence orders are as a resultmetimes used to transfer the primary care of descendant from one parent to another. In a case published in February this year, a judge granted residency to a divorced father after claims that the mother of two boys was failing to properly care for them and obstructing contact.
Photo by Kristen Taylor via Flickr