Cordelia Williams acts for father in complex and “unusually difficult” international relocation case G v H (Relocation to Australia: Immigration Issues) [2024] EWFC 230 (B)

Cordelia Williams, instructed by Penningtons Manches Cooper, appeared for the father in an international relocation case that was decided based on unusually complicated factors for an international family.

The immigration status of the mother and child in the UK were deemed to be crucial considerations that affected HHJ Reardon’s assessment of whether the relocation application to Australia was in the child’s best interests. The court considered expert evidence from both UK and Australian lawyers. The Judge concluded that despite many other factors pointing in favour of the child remaining living in London, immigration should be a determinative welfare issue. The mother’s financial insecurity was another important welfare feature that the Judge considered favoured a ‘going home’ move for the mother and child to return to Australia. The child also had additional needs arising from autism, including a dietary condition and sensory modulation difficulties.

Unfortunately, the independent social worker (ISW)’s work did not assist the family, and the case provides an example of some of the pitfalls of problematic ISW input. The ISW’s recommendations in favour of a move to Australia were swiftly dispatched after cross-examination showed the report to have “significant, obvious, and fundamental flaws”. The Judge concluded: “Ms Wright [the ISW], it seems, had not even considered the travel options [for contact] and in her oral evidence did not appear to see why that would be a relevant issue. There was therefore no consideration at all of the likely impact of a relation on X’s relationship with his father, and finally no balancing of the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Unfortunately, Ms Wright’s oral evidence did not fill any of those gaps and only increased my concerns…. The inevitable conclusion is that I cannot give any weight to Ms Wright’s conclusions and recommendation.”

Unusually, the Judge permitted the permanent move to Australia despite her findings that “there had been real and significant failures in the mother’s parenting of X in the context of her attitude to his father… [and] there remains a risk that the mother will not prioritise the father as a significant figure in X’s life.”

HHJ Reardon, sitting at the East London Family Court, concluded: “This has been an unusually difficult relocation case where the court has been presented with two unpalatable alternatives driven by a combination of factors, including X’s needs, the immigration and financial issues, and the personalities and relationship of the parents.

That has led me to conclude that if I allow the application X’s relationship with one of his parents may well be damaged significantly and possibly irreparably, but if I refuse the application I leave him in a situation where his mother on whom he is primarily dependent faces a precarious and unstable situation both in terms of financial security and immigration status.”

“On a very fine balance I have come to the conclusion that it is a move to Australia that is in X’s best interests. X’s additional needs and the insecurity of the mother’s situation are key factors in my decision. If either of those had been different the decision might well have gone the other way.”

The Judge ordered the mother must make the child available for 2 weeks of contact on as many occasions as the father was able to travel to their Australian town, with no limit on the number of visits each year, albeit recognising the travel impediment of distance between London and Australia. The mother was ordered to bring the child to the UK at least once annually for contact with his father, at the mother’s expense. There was to be an order (and mirror order in Australia obtained at the mother’s expense) that if the father moves to Australia at any point in the future the contact arrangements would be reviewed, with an expectation that they would facilitate the child spending regular time with his father.

The judgment is here.