Two recent Family Court judgments provide important clarification on how relocation disputes are approached, reaffirming that the welfare of the child, rather than parental preference, remains the court’s guiding principle. In this article, associate Francesca Carrington-Hughes and trainee solicitor Mollie Mann examine the judgments in Re K and Re O.

The decisions in Re K and RE O reaffirm the judiciary’s consistent approach: relocation applications must be considered through a holistic and balanced assessment of all realistic options, with the child’s best interests remaining the paramount concern in the court’s determination.

Re K (Internal Relocation) [2025] EWFC 285 (B)

In Re K, a mother made an application to move her three-year-old son from Nottingham to north west England. Although the distance was modest, the move would have significantly impacted the child’s time with his father, reducing regular hands-on involvement to travel-based weekend contact. The court scrutinised the mother’s proposal closely. Several key elements, such as the extent of family support in the proposed area, the mother’s husband’s employment prospects and the practical day-to-day arrangements for the child, were unsupported by evidence. The judge described the mother’s expectations as “idealistic”, noting that she had not adequately considered the implications if permission were refused.

Crucially, the court emphasised the need to evaluate both options side by side. While the mother’s case focused heavily on perceived benefits of relocating, there was limited analysis of what the child’s life would look like if he remained in Nottingham. The father’s existing involvement, built upon consistent care and routine, weighed heavily in the welfare assessment.

The court concluded that the relocation would considerably restrict the father’s ability to engage with the child’s schooling and day-to-day life and prevent ad hoc contact. Ultimately, the court found that remaining in Nottingham would preserve stability for the child and enable the child’s relationship with his father to continue to develop in a natural and meaningful way. In the absence of a compelling or well-developed case for relocation, the application was refused.

Re O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation) [2025] EWCA Civ 888

Re O presented a different picture. In this case, the mother sought to relocate to the UAE with her two children against the background of serious findings of domestic abuse, including physical assaults and coercive and controlling behaviour witnessed by the children. The judgment is notable for its depth of analysis on harm and the children’s emotional safety. The court recognised that although the most serious abuse had occurred in the past, the emotional impact remained acute. Both children were described as “deeply affected”.

The court accepted that remaining in England exposed the mother and children to ongoing emotional harm and instability. The proposed move offered financial security, family support and a meaningful opportunity for the mother to rebuild her life. The court accepted that the mother’s wellbeing was central to the children’s welfare and that the move could create a genuinely safer emotional landscape for the family.

Although the relocation presented challenges, including uncertainty about enforcement mechanisms abroad, the court placed weight on the mother’s clear commitment to supporting the children’s relationship with their father. The court also considered the broader context where the father had shown limited insight into the findings against him and his behaviour continued to generate emotional risk. The protective and stabilising effect of relocation was therefore central to the welfare analysis. The Court of Appeal dismissed the father’s appeal and upheld the High Court judge’s decision to grant permission for the mother and two children to relocate to a non-Hague Convention country.

A shifting approach in relocation decisions

Although the outcomes in Re K and Re O differ, the underlying approach is consistent. The court continues to examine relocation proposals with close attention to evidence, realism and the lived experience of the children under each scenario, including how the child’s daily life would look if they stayed, how it would look if they moved and what the short and long-term consequences of either choice would be.

Relocation will not be approved simply because the moving parent believes life will improve elsewhere, nor will it be refused purely because the non-moving parent objects. What matters is a careful comparison of the realities of each option and the extent to which these promote the child’s welfare. Judges are increasingly aware of the emotional harm that may be caused to children and to the ability of the caregiving parent to provide a secure and stable environment. Proportionality is embedded within the analysis, particularly where a move would materially alter the child’s relationship with a parent or siblings.

An important backdrop to these judgments is the government’s recent decision to remove the presumption of parental involvement when making child arrangement decisions. Re K and Re O demonstrate that removing this presumption aligns public understanding with the judicial reality. It is hoped that the reform may contribute to more transparent judicial reasoning and greater confidence among survivors of abuse that their concerns will be considered within the welfare assessment, rather than through the lens of an outdated presumption.

Comment

Carly Kinch, a partner in the Family team at Stewarts, observes:

“These decisions reaffirm that relocation cases demand careful evidence and a genuinely balanced evaluation of the child’s life in each proposed scenario. The courts are increasingly attuned to the impact of emotional harm and the realities of day-to-day relationships. A parent seeking to relocate must present a robust, practical and carefully reasoned proposal. Equally, a parent opposing the move must engage constructively with what the child’s life would look like under each scenario. Above all, welfare remains, as ever, the determining factor.”

Subscribe – In order to receive our news straight to your inbox, subscribe here. Our newsletters are sent no more than once a month.