K v K (Relocation: Shared Care Arrangement)
The only principle in relocation cases is that the welfare of the child is paramount, and the guidance in Payne v Payne is not a presumption in favour of the parent who wishes to relocate.
Facts
Mr and Mrs K, who had two daughters, separated, and the children spent substantial time with each parent under a shared care arrangement. The mother, a Canadian, wished to return to Canada with the children. The judge, applying Payne v Payne, gave her permission to relocate. The father appealed, arguing that the judge had given too much weight to the effect of a refusal on the mother.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal allowed the father's appeal. Moore-Bick LJ said that the only authentic principle that runs through the whole of the jurisprudence is that the welfare of the child is paramount, and that the guidance in Payne v Payne was not a presumption, but a description of the factors that are likely to be relevant. Black LJ said that Payne was of particular relevance where one parent was the primary carer, but that in a shared care case, the court should apply the welfare principle and the welfare checklist without being constrained by Payne. The case was sent back for a rehearing.
Related cases on private law disputes about children and child abduction
- Re B (A Child) (Residence: Biological Parent) [2009] UKSC 5, [2009] 1 WLR 2496
- Re C (A Child) (Immunisation: Parental Rights) [2003] EWCA Civ 1148, [2003] 2 FLR 1095
- Re D (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006] UKHL 51, [2007] 1 AC 619
- Dawson v Wearmouth [1999] 2 AC 308
- Re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) [2011] UKSC 27, [2012] 1 AC 144
- Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Cases) [2015] EWCA Civ 882
- Re G (Children) (Residence: Same-sex Partner) [2006] UKHL 43, [2006] 1 WLR 2305
- Re J (A Child) (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) [2005] UKHL 40, [2006] 1 AC 80
Studying family law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
