Leave to Remove

The Custody Minefield Factsheets – Smartphone Series (optimised for smartphone users). Copyright Michael Robinson 2010. Copyright Michael Robinson 2010. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's printer for Scotland.

Return to the Family Law Menu or return to The Custody Minefield and also see our leave to remove case law summary

Contents

What are leave to remove applications?

What the Court considers when reaching a decision as to whether to grant Leave to Remove

Circumstances which individually assist the likelihood of a Leave to Remove application being granted

Circumstances which may assist someone in defending against a leave to remove application

Support

What are leave to remove applications? <Back to Top>

Leave to Remove applications are typically made to the court by the resident parent (or a parent with shared residence) to seek the court's permission to emigrate with the children.

The applications are brought under section 13(1) of the Children Act 1989 which reads:

13 Change of child's name or removal from jurisdiction

(1) Where a residence order is in force with respect to a child, no person may -

(a) cause the child to be known by a new surname; or

(b) remove him from the United Kingdom;

without either the written consent of every person who has parental responsibility for the child or the leave of the court.

Your consent must be sought for the children to be removed from the United Kingdom if you have parental responsibility for the children. Your consent should also be sought if there is a Children Act case pending before the family courts (Re B (Child Abduction: Unmarried Father) [1998] 2 FLR 146). There is common law guidance that consent to remove the children from the jurisdiction should also be sought where the father has regular contact with the children (Re V (Jurisdiction: Habitual Residence) [2001] 1 FLR 253), but be aware that this is under UK law, which will be of limited or no use once the children have left the UK.

If a child is removed from the UK without your consent or the UK courts’ permission, and you hold legal parental responsibility for the children, then the removal is illegal. Reunite is a charity that specialises in assisting parents whose children are unlawfully removed abroad and we recommend you contact them. If you are concerned that your children may be illegally removed abroad, you should contact them as a matter of urgency. Their helpline number is 01162 556 234. On our home page, we provide a one page guide to applying to the court for an emergency prohibited steps order to help prevent the children’s unlawful removal.

While leave to remove applications are often granted, the court's involvement may still be useful, as arrangements for contact should be agreed before the emigration goes ahead. This may involve increased holiday time for the parent who remains in the UK, decisions concerning who covers the cost of travel and accommodation costs, that there must be mirror orders (orders for contact made in the country of relocation as well as in the UK), and other measures to help ensure contact goes ahead as ordered.

Be aware that once the children are habitually resident in a foreign country, enforcement of orders can be very difficult and costly. You are likely to have to travel to the country and seek a contact order in the country where the children live. This will involve legal, travel and accommodation costs.

What the Court considers when reaching a decision as to whether to grant Leave to Remove <Back to Top>

The case law Payne v Payne sets out guidance which the court should consider if the emigrating parent is the primary carer. In that case, Lord Justice Thorpe set out the two hurdles which the resident parent should satisfy before the merits of their application are further considered:

·         That their motives for the move are genuine;

·         That their plans are well thought through.

We strongly urge any non-resident parent involved in a leave to remove case to read Payne v Payne, as this is the leading case law and sets out what should be considered by the court. You will find it on our Case Law page. It is important though to remember that the only point of law from Payne v Payne is that the welfare of the children must be the court’s paramount consideration (as is the case with any proceedings involving children).

You would imagine that such things as the impact on the child of being removed from school, the loss of their social network and extended family, the loss of familiarity with their home environment, removal from their native culture, and the loss or significant change to their day-to-day relationship with their non-resident parent (or parent with shared residence) would carry great weight with the court. You would be wrong.

It is estimated that 90% of leave to remove cases succeed with the main reason being that to refuse the application would cause the resident parent such distress that this would (in theory) adversely impact on the child's welfare. This is commonly referred to as the ‘distress argument’. The strength of the weighting granted to the distress argument is rooted in the case law Payne v Payne.

Where care is shared, the courts should instead refer to the guidance as set out in the case Re Y (Leave to Remove from the Jurisdiction) [2004] FLR 330 (also available to download from our Case Law page. The guidance in Payne v Payne only applies where there is a primary carer (and not where care is shared). In all cases, the court’s decision should be based upon the individual facts of the case.

Circumstances which individually assist the likelihood of a Leave to Remove application being granted <Back to Top>

1)     where the emigrating parent is the primary carer.

2)     it can be demonstrated that refusal of permission will be sufficiently emotionally or psychologically harmful to the primary carer that it impacts on their care of the child (this is commonly referred to as the distress argument).

3)     the resident parent or their new partner seeks to return to their country of birth and/or has family in the country they wish to emigrate to.

4)     there are no concerns as to the resident parent's ability to provide adequate childcare.

5)     the plans for the move are well thought through.

6)     there is no intention to disrupt the relationship between the child(ren) and the other parent.

7)     a support structure exists to assist the resident parent with the child care in the new country (although this is not essential).

8)     the plans for continued contact with the non-resident parent are practical.

9)     the resident parent has remarried and the child is in a new family structure.

10)  the children have step-brothers / sisters within the resident parent's new relationship (the Court would rarely agree to the ‘new family’ being divided).

11)  the child has sufficient maturity to understand what impact the move would have on their life and wishes to emigrate.

12)  the resident parent is clearly the majority carer. It is our experience that the lower the number of nights per week or fortnight that the non-resident parent has their children stay with them, the higher the difficulty in preventing a leave to remove, and vice versa.

Circumstances which may assist someone in defending against a leave to remove application <Back to Top>

1)     that the care of the children is essentially shared between the two, separated parents.

2)     the greater the amount of parenting time spent with the non-relocating parent, the higher the hurdle for relocation, although shared care is not an automatic bar to relocation being granted.

3)     that the relocating parent seeks to reduce or prevent the child's relationship with their non-relocating parent due to continued hostility. A history of broken contact, refusal to co-operate over schooling/medical matters may assist in demonstrating questionable motive.

4)     that the plans for the move and the child's subsequent care are not practical. Questions need to be asked such as:

a)     Who will care for the child if the resident parent (or child) is ill?

b)    What childcare plans exist? How do these compare to the support structure in the UK.

c)     Who will pick the child up from school?

5)     there exist concerns about the relocating parent's ability to provide consistent care.

6)     there are concerns regarding the relocating parent’s mental health.

7)     that a strong bond exists between the child and non-relocating parent.

8)     the child is sufficiently mature to understand what impact the move would have on their life and wishes to remain in the UK.

Support <Back to Top>

The Custody Minefield offers support forums where you can ask our team of experienced support staff questions about family law, the courts and separation. Collectively, we have answered more than 10,000 posts on other family law related support forums. Visit our Support Forum Page on The Custody Minefield website to find out how to register.

Return to the Family Law Menu or return to The Custody Minefield