K, Re (Internal Relocation)

This case is about { } (“K”), who was born on { } 2022. K is 3 years { } months old.

K’s father is { } (“the Father”). He was born on { } 1990. He is the Applicant.

K’s mother is { } (“the Mother”). She was born on { } 2001. She is the Respondent.

I will refer to the Mother and the Father collectively as “the parents”.

As long ago as 15 January 2024 the Father applied for a Child Arrangements Order in respect of K. On 3 December 2024 the Father’s application was listed for final hearing before Lay Justices. On 17 March 2025, a little over 10 weeks before the application was to be heard, the Mother filed a C2 application seeking permission to relocate the child “to the { North West } area”. The hearing before the Lay Justices was vacated and the applications were listed to be heard before me on 22 August 2024. This is the judgment of the Court following the hearing of the parents’ applications.

The parents separated in May 2023. K is their only child. It is common ground that from when the parents separated until around December 2023 K spent every Friday to Monday in the Father’s care (about 6 nights each fortnight). Since the parents separated, K has primarily been cared for by the Mother.

Whilst the parents agree the arrangements for K to spend time with the Father stopped in December 2023, they do not agree why that was so.

On 30 April 2024 the Court ordered by consent that K spend time with the Father from 6:00pm on Fridays until 4:00pm on Sundays each alternate week. That arrangement has persisted to date.

Neither of the parents submitted that Practice Direction 12J is relevant. I am not so sure it is irrelevant given the Mother alleges quasi-stalking behaviour by the Father and alleges (in general terms) that the Father was controlling. I have and will have regard to Practice Direction 12J in my determination of the welfare issues.

I invited submissions on whether any participation directions were required. Both parents said that none were required.

The parents agree:

The issues to be determined are:

I have read all the written evidence carefully. I similarly listened carefully to the oral evidence. This judgment is not intended to be a repetition of everything I considered and my failure to recite a particular part of the evidence does not reflect a failure on my part to consider it. What follows is only intended to be a summary.

{ The Family Court Adviser } is the allocated Family Court Adviser (“the FCA”). The FCA prepared a letter commenting on the proposed application for K to relocate with the Mother to the { North West } area dated 9 May 2025 as well as a Cafcass Addendum Analysis’ dated 27 June 2025. The FCA’s work followed a Safeguarding Letter dated 18 March 2024 prepared by her colleague { Cafcass Employee 1 } and a section 7 report prepared by her colleague { Cafcass Employee 2 }.

The FCA undertook an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages she identified of the proposed relocation and concluded that the relocation should be supported. She described the decision as “finely balanced”. In the FCA’s opinion the proposal to relocate has merit and K will cope well with the change.

The FCA maintained the opinions she expressed in writing in her oral evidence.

The Mother argues the FCA’s analysis is detailed and to be given significant weight. The Father submits the analysis is deficient and there is ample reason for concluding the FCA’s opinions ought not be preferred.

The Father’s submissions have merit.

First, the FCA’s analysis is linear. At no point did the FCA undertake any evaluation of the relative advantages and disadvantages to K’s welfare of him remaining in Nottingham. It follows, the FCA did not perform a holistic evaluation of the different proposals against each other. Instead, the FCA concluded that, as (in her opinion) the advantages of relocation outweigh its disadvantages the relocation was to be approved. I regret I must conclude the clear impression left by the FCA’s evidence was that the first time it occurred to her that she had undertaken an insufficient analysis was when she was asked questions by the Court at the conclusion of her evidence.

Secondly, the FCA failed to consider what K’s life (particularly his relationship with the Father) would be if he remained in Nottingham or make recommendations for K should he remain in Nottingham. Even when given the opportunity to reflect, the FCA struggled to articulate any proper proposals for K’s relationship with the Father if K is to remain in Nottingham. Regrettably, I must find FCA never got to grips with what K stood to lose by the relocation taking place.

Thirdly, I accept the FCA accepted the Mother’s narrative at face-value, rather than undertaking any meaningful challenge of her views and without her opinions being qualified by the Mother’s contentions coming to proof. For example, the FCA accepted at face value the Mother’s case that (A) there was a network of support for the Mother in { the North West } area when there is no evidence from anyone in that network as to precisely what support they can provide and the FCA did not speak to them; and (B) the FCA accepted at face value that there are greater opportunities for { }, the Mother’s Husband (“the Husband”) in the absence of any corroborating material.

Fourthly, the FCA did not explore with the Mother her options for remaining in the Nottingham area to ascertain if there are realistic options that do not require relocation.

Fifthly, the FCA’s understanding of the history is inadequate. She says she is “not aware … that [the Mother] has prevented K from seeing his father,” when it is common ground between the parents that the Mother did in fact do so.

Moreover, I regret to conclude the FCA was not a satisfactory witness. The FCA frequently gave non-responsive answers, especially when questions required a critique of the Mother’s proposals, and on a number of occasions she had to be asked to focus on what was asked. I have come to the clear conclusion that I must be cautious in giving weight to the FCA’s judgment and analysis.

I understand from the FCA that the Mother and the Husband have been in a relationship for two years. They have been married for one year. The Mother and the Husband have one child together. The Mother is studying { } through the { }. I learn from the FCA that the Husband is a { }. He told the FCA he was looking for jobs in { }. The Husband works in an office in Nottinghamshire two days each week and the remainder of the time he works from home.

The Mother feels isolated and stuck in Nottingham. She has no relationship with her father or her own siblings, who live in Nottingham. Her mother has recently left Nottingham and relocated to { a town in Yorkshire }. The Mother wants to be in the { North West } area because that is where the Husband’s family are. She says they will support her, but other than saying they would be an emotional support she failed to say how she and K would be supported by them. The Mother has looked at housing in the { North West } area. She says she can obtain a more comfortable home for less money than she can in Nottingham and provided some property particulars.

The Mother told me she has no friends. She did not identify any groups or support networks she has engaged in.

Whilst the Mother said that she and the Husband had been speaking about moving to the { North West } area for a couple of years, that evidence was not persuasive. The Mother failed to satisfactorily explain why it was not until a matter of weeks prior to the vacated final hearing that she raised the prospect of relocation. The Mother’s plans struck as more recently formed, rather than being a long-standing settled intention.

The presentation of the Mother’s case is very problematic.

Her own witness statement says nothing of: (A) the nature of her relationship with the Husband; (B) who the extended family members in { the North West } area are; (C) where those family members live relative to where the Mother intends to live; (D) what her, the Husband’s and K’s relationships are with each of those family members in { the North West area }(besides saying K “has enjoyed spending time with them”); (E) what support the family members in { the North West area } (can actually provide; or (F) her alternative plan should the Court refuse to give her the permission she seeks.

There is no evidence from the Husband detailing: (A) the nature of his work; (B) what work opportunities there are in the { North West } area; (C) why his work cannot be done combined with remote working; (D) what efforts he has made to obtain alternative work; or (E) the nature of his relationship with his relatives in { the North West area }.

There is no evidence from any of the Husband’s family members corroborating: (A) the support they can provide; or (B) the relationship they have with the Mother, the Husband and K.

The Mother’s counsel conceded there is no practicable reason why the Mother cannot reside in Nottingham.

Overall, the Mother struck as a person with idealistic, rather than realistic, thinking that her life would significantly and immediately, as if overnight, improve by moving. I found her reflections to be superficial. For example, there is no evidence she has meaningfully engaged with how she and the Husband would manage if the Husband does not secure work or if she is unable to slot into the lives of the Husband’s relatives in the { North West } area. It is apparent she sees her relocation as a panacea and did not offer any reflections on challenges she may face. Moreover, only very recently have she and the Husband thought about what they would do if her application is refused.

Whilst the Mother appeared to be honest in her beliefs, she impressed as being immature. I consider there is a level of naivety to her views, such as her view that K’s relocation will have limited impact on his relationship with the Father. Whilst she told me and the FCA that her desire to relocate has been on her mind for years, I was unpersuaded that was so. Rather, I find the Mother’s intention to relocate is recently formed. There was no satisfactory explanation for why her desire to relocate was communicated so late in these proceedings, if it had been even a somewhat settled intention. She went through the entire process of a section 7 report without mentioning a desire to relocate. I am not satisfied the Mother’s plans are seriously thought through or well considered.

The Father is a { }. He works 8:00am to 4:00pm, Mondays to Fridays. He tells me his work are accommodating, however he has not yet secured confirmation of flexible working arrangements. The Father is training to be a { }. The Father lives in one-bedroom property. When K stays with the Father, K sleeps in a separate bed within the Father’s bedroom.

The Father accepted the Mother has a limited support network in Nottingham and when it was put to him in very broad terms that there are “benefits” to the Husband having family in the { North West } area he conceded there were. However, no specific benefits were put to him and it is difficult to see how any could have been when the Mother’s evidence did not identify any.

The Father presses orders that would see K live with each of the Mother and the Father on a 7 day alternating pattern. I found the Father was unrealistic in his view that such a move to an equal division of time would not be a significant change for K. In that respect, he did not reflect as a person with satisfactory insight into K’s present developmental needs.

Overall, the Father struck as a straightforward if somewhat unsophisticated man. I did not form the impression that his opposition to the proposed relocation was grounded in a desire to the control the Mother, but was instead a result of his honestly held belief that the relocation would not be in K’s best interests.

The burden of proof on all disputes of fact lies with the person claiming the fact to be true.The standard of proof is a simple balance of probabilities. Whether an assertion of fact is true is binary. If the standard of proof is met, then the assertion is fact and treated so for my decision-making. If the standard of proof is not met, then the assertion is not a fact for my decision-making. There is no room for treating suspicion as fact for the purposes of my decision-making.

Any findings I make must be based on evidence, including inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence and not speculation. That evidence can be written or oral and I can rely on hearsay evidence from witnesses who have not given oral evidence. However, I must consider carefully what weight to give that hearsay evidence as I have not had the opportunity to consider how it would have stood up to challenge by cross-examination.

Baroness Hale cautioned on fact-finding in private law proceedings in W Children [2010] UKSC 12 at [29]:

“…there are specific risks to which the court must be alive. Allegations of abuse are not being made by a neutral and expert Local Authority which has nothing to gain by making them, but by a parent who is seeking to gain an advantage in the battle against the other parent. This does not mean that they are false, but it does increase the risk of misinterpretation, exaggeration or downright fabrication”

The Court must take into account all the evidence, considering each piece of evidence in the context of the other evidence – surveying a wide landscape – and must avoid compartmentalising.

K’s welfare has been my paramount consideration. I assess his best interests within the context of the considerations in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 (“the Act”).

I remind myself that when considering whether to make a section 8 order, I must presume unless the contrary is shown, that the involvement of each parent in the child’s life will further each child’s welfare. A parent will be treated as benefiting from that presumption unless there is some evidence before the court to suggest that the involvement of the parent in the child’s life would put the child at risk of suffering harm.

The Court must not make an order pursuant to its powers under the Act, unless it considers that doing so would be better for K than making no order at all, or no less draconian order. Delay in resolving a question about K’s welfare, especially in proceedings as long-running as these, is detrimental to the welfare of the children.

There is no longer any differentiation in the approach to be taken as between internal and external relocation cases (Re C (Internal Relocation) [2017] 1 FLR 103). The only authentic principle is the paramount welfare of the child. In either type of relocation case, external or internal, it is helpful to consider the matters referred to in Payne v Payne [2001] 1 FLR 1052; but not as a prescriptive blueprint; rather and merely as a checklist of the sort of factors which will or may need to be weighed in the balance when determining which decision would better serve the welfare of the child.

The considerations identified in Payne by Thorpe LJ (at [85]) to be relevant to the determination of the relocation issue were:

“(a)

The welfare of the child is always paramount.

(b)

There is no presumption created by section 13(1)(b) in favour of the applicant parent.

(c)

The reasonable proposals of the parent with a residence order wishing to live abroad carry great weight.

(d)

Consequently the proposals have to be scrutinised with care and the court needs to be satisfied that there is a genuine motivation for the move and not the intention to bring contact between the child and the other parent to an end.

(e)

The effect upon the applicant parent and the new family of the child of a refusal of leave is very important.

(f)

The effect upon the child of the denial of contact with the other parent and in some cases his family is very important.

(g)

The opportunity for continuing contact between the child and the parent left behind may be very significant.”

I am clear that these considerations identified by Thorpe LJ are not the anchor to which the decision is to be tethered. In Re F (A child) (International Relocation Case) [2015] EWCA Civ 882 Ryder LJ said that (at [18]):

“The questions identified in Payne may or may not be relevant on the facts of an individual case and the court will be better placed if it concentrates not on assumptions or preconceptions but on the statutory welfare question which is before it ...”

The Court’s task is to holistically evaluate all of the realistic options. Ryder LJ said in Re F (A child) (International Relocation Case) (at [30]):

The sidelining of the Father’s ‘left behind’ proposal is the trap fallen into by the FCA as a result of the linear analysis.

Each of the parents and K have a right to family life. Where those interests conflict, K’s interests will take priority over each of the parents’.

I am mindful of the definition of domestic abuse under section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Domestic abuse includes any single incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are personally connected within the meaning of section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

Abuse can encompass, but is not limited to, psychological, physical, sexual, economic or emotional abuse. Economic abuse means any behaviour that has a substantial adverse effect on the other’s person’s ability to acquire, use or maintain money or other property, goods or services.

Coercive behaviour includes an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.

Controlling behaviour includes an act or pattern of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.

The circumstances encompassed by the definition of domestic abuse in Practice Direction 12J recognises that coercive and/or controlling behaviour by one party may cause serious emotional and psychological harm to members of the family unit, whether or not there has been any actual episode of violence or abuse.

In short, a pattern of coercive and/or controlling behaviour can be as abusive or more abusive than any particular factual incident that might be written down and included in a schedule in court proceedings. It follows that the harm to a child in an abusive household is not limited to cases of actual violence to the child or to the parents. A pattern of abusive behaviour is as relevant to the child as to the adult victim. A child can be harmed in any one or a combination of ways.

It is equally important to be clear that not all directive, assertive, stubborn or selfish behaviour, will be ‘abuse’ in the context of proceedings concerning the welfare of a child. Much will turn on the intention of the perpetrator of the alleged abuse and on the harmful impact of the behaviour. There is no bright line that defines what kind of behaviour can properly be characterised as coercive and controlling

The Mother alleged the Father engaged in “controlling behaviour” and that the Father dictated to her the time that K should spend with him. The Mother allegations were pleaded in general terms, which did not aid the identification of the specific behaviour and how that impacted her.

The Mother alleged the Father made false allegations about her to social services on three occasions. She says they follow her “making decisions he did not like”. Unhelpfully, the Mother’s evidence does not detail what those allegations consisted of. I have identified from other evidence that:

I accept a parent making deliberately false allegations about another parent to a public authority would amount to abusive behaviour. However, the Mother has not proved the Father engaged in abusive behaviour, including controlling or coercive behaviour. Besides the very general contentions the Mother alleged, at no time did the Mother put any matter relating to domestic abuse (even at its most general) to the Father in cross-examination.The Cafcass safeguarding letter records that the local authority was unable to substantiate the Mother’s claims of abuse. The Mother has not satisfied me that the Father’s reports were made other than in good faith. In December 2023 he expressly stated he was not worried about K’s welfare, contraindicating a malicious complaint. His request for a safe and well check in January 2024 was understandable in circumstances where his time with K was abruptly halted. It is more likely the Father, not having a fully formed understanding of K’s development, misinterpreted developmentally typical behaviour as sexualised.

It is not disputed the Mother unilaterally stopped K’s time with the Father. However, I consider this was driven by an overly anxious disposition on the part of the Mother, rather than an intention to deny K a relationship with the Father. The observed strength of K’s relationship with the Father contraindicates that relationship being sabotaged by the Mother.

As the Father has an overly ambitious perspective of K’s ability to cope with change, the Mother’s is overly conservative in her outlook. She struggles to foresee K being able to spend more time with the Father during terms than Fridays to Sundays in alternate weeks. She is not attuned to K’s capacity to adapt to change anchored by the strength of his relationship with the Father.

K has limited communication and no wishes that can be ascertained. He presents as attached to both of his parents.

K requires his parents to provide him safe and loving care. He is primarily attached to the Mother and maintaining the strength of that connection is in K’s best interests.

K is 3 years 8 months old. He has a younger half-sibling, who is an important part of his family unit.

There is no dispute the Mother is capable of meeting all of K’s physical needs. K and the Mother have a warm and loving bond. The Mother is undoubtedly his primary attachment. The Mother did not consistently meet K’s need for a relationship with the Father when she abruptly stopped the time spent between them. That change would likely have negatively impacted K’s emotional wellbeing and caused him confusion.

The Father has a home that is appropriate for meeting K’s needs. He can meet K’s physical and most of his emotional needs. That is the inevitable inference from it being agreed that K can spend long extended periods with the Father in holiday periods (notwithstanding his young age). K feels safe around the Father, which reflects the Father’s capability of meeting K’s emotional needs. K has a close and loving bond with the Father.

The Father has capacity to improve his understanding of K’s developmental needs. The Father’s belief that K could immediately move to an equal time arrangement without it impacting K reflects an unsatisfactory understanding of how K would be negatively impacted by rapid change in his relationship with his primary attachment figure.

There are two means by which K may suffer emotional harm. First, by the vicarious impact on him of his primary carer having her wish to relocate unrealised. Secondly, by his relationship with the Father being constrained by tyranny of their distance from each other should K be relocated to the { North West } area. As to the first of these risks, the Mother’s counsel conceded that if the relocation was not approved then she would “make it work”.

I will address this consideration within my analysis of the realistic options for K’s future.

The available options for K’s future are:

Options (b) and (c) are not realistic because the Father does not intend to relocate away from Nottingham. Option (g) can be discounted because the Mother has no intention of relocating without K. When the options are identified in this way it brings the deficiencies in the FCA’s analysis into stark focus.

My conclusions concerning a relocation are informed by this context:

It is common ground that should K be relocated to the { North West } area then the Court should order K spend time with the Father from Friday evenings to Sunday afternoons on alternate weeks.

The Mother will be much happier if she is able to live with K in the North West. I accept, as her counsel put it, “Nottingham is not for her” any longer. She has fallen out with or lost connection with relatives and her last local connection, her own mother, is moving to { a town in Yorkshire }. If the Mother moves to the { North West area }, she will feel less isolated. I accept there is considerable advantage to K’s welfare of his primary carer being happy, being comfortable in the place she wishes to live and feeling a community around her. In the North West, K would be closer to his step-father’s relatives and his sibling’s cousins. K would be placed in an appropriate nursery and school for his needs. However, I do not consider this plan is well considered and the Mother has an idealistic frame of mind. There is a material risk it will not be what she dreams (for example, the Husband’s relatives may be less available than she hopes or the Husband may struggle to find work), which would disappoint her.

Under the agreed child arrangements on a relocation, K would benefit from having extended time with the Father during holidays. That would afford the opportunity for them to remain connected and give K understanding of his paternal identity. He could spend time with his paternal relatives. K would be able to spend time once per fortnight at weekends with his Father, which would help in maintaining their connection between opportunities for them to spend longer periods of time together.

There are considerable disadvantages for K of the proposed relocation. K would be prevented from having anything other than a limited direct relationship with the Father outside of holiday periods. K would not have the opportunity to develop the depth of relationship with the Father that he would have were he not to relocate.

In my judgment the fortnightly journeys between { North West area } and Nottingham, whether by train or by car in Friday and Sunday night traffic, would be extremely onerous for young K. It will be all the more challenging for K once he starts school. I accept K is likely to be exhausted on arriving at the Father’s home on Friday nights and recovery from the journey will impinge on the quality of the time K spends with the Father at weekends. It is probable K will be tired in the mornings or need to sleep in, making Saturday morning activities a little more difficult. The impact of the journey means the Mother’s proposal is not a replication the current arrangements with K living in a different city. Instead, K’s experience of his time with the Father would be a qualitative less beneficial experience for K than if he were spending the same time with the Father but living in Nottingham because of the existence of the commute.

I find that the onerous return journey will likely impinge on K’s school week because he is likely to be less settled after returning home late on Sundays than he otherwise would be on those weekends he does not have to travel. There is a real risk, which cannot be ignored, that the onerous return journey will negatively affect K’s educational development. Moreover, the Father would be unable to have any meaningful engagement with K’s school or his educational development. It is unlikely the Father will have the opportunity to develop relationships with school staff or attend significant school events. It is unlikely the Father would be able to support K with his homework. K spending ad hoc time with the Father, such as on his birthday, will be difficult if not impossible if he lives in { North West area }.

I identify “modest time” to be a Friday to Sunday alternate week pattern during term times with longer periods in holidays.

If K is to remain in Nottingham then his Mother will too. The Mother will continue to be able to participate in her remote studies. The Husband will continue to be gainfully employed. There is no real prospect of the family being unable to make ends meet. I accept the Father’s evidence that there are alternative suitable properties the Mother’s family may live in with gardens within their budget.

It will be to K’s great benefit that he will live in proximity to both parents. The Father would be able to be a part of K’s school community by collecting him from school on Fridays. The Father would be able to conveniently attend significant school events, such as parents’ evenings. The Father’s understanding of K’s developmental and educational needs is likely to be aided by the opportunity for such interactions. The absence of distance will mean the parents can each contribute to and make informed decisions when they exercise parental responsibility. For example, the parents will likely both understand local school options in Nottingham and be able to inspect local school, as well as both being sufficiently local to attend important medical appointments. K’s welfare is enhanced by the informed joint exercise of parental responsibility. To save repetition, I identify these considerations as the “benefits of K staying in Nottingham”.

I accept K remaining in Nottingham will be a heavy disappointment for the Mother. I accept she will feel a sense of isolation in the short-term in Nottingham with a risk that may persist. She will not have the Husband’s family in proximity to her. She will not have any family locally whom she has a relationship with. The Mother would need to consider strategies she is yet to embrace to expand her social network. She did not strike me as a person for whom that would be easy, but she may find that is easier once K starts school. Forming an assessment of the impact the inability to relocate will have on the Mother’s care of K is important. The Mother has not offered any evidence which suggests remaining would impact or compromise her mental health such that she would not provide appropriate care for K. The concession made by the Mother through her counsel that the Mother (should she have to remain in Nottingham) will “make it work” does not suggest the impact will come close to compromising the care given to K. To save repetition, I identify these considerations as the “disadvantages of K staying in Nottingham”.

The time that K would spend with the Father in term time (Friday to Sunday) would be very limited in my judgment. Whilst K would be less tired when he arrives into the Father’s care on Fridays than if he is to live in { North West area }, the opportunity for them to deepen their strong connection through the mundane, but qualitatively important interactions of daily life, would be limited. Moreover, the opportunity for the Father to engage with K’s school directly would likely be limited to one occasion once per fortnight.

All the benefits of K staying in Nottingham are engaged. In addition, K would spend significantly more time with the Father. There would be greater opportunity for K to develop a deeper relationship with the Father because K would spend significant qualitatively valuable time with the Father, such as sitting and eating together talking about their days and the Father being able to regularly undertake a bedtime routine. Moreover, K spending equal time with the Father would give the Mother greater opportunity to travel to { North West area } to spend time with the Husband’s family when K is not in her care, particularly if that can be co-ordinated around the Husband’s remote work. K would have the greatest opportunity to spend time with his paternal family, which would strengthen his understanding of his paternal identity. This would be less significant were it not for it being apparent K is unlikely to have a meaningful relationship with his wider maternal family.

The parents would both have important roles in promoting K’s educational development. They would each be responsible for getting K to school, interacting with teachers and supporting K with homework.

All the disadvantages of K staying in Nottingham would be engaged. Furthermore, K would experience a division of time that would be a significant change for him. I find he would likely struggle with such significant separation from the person to whom he is primarily attached. I am not confident the Father has the insight to understand this impact on K nor, presently (given that lack of insight), the parenting capability to support K with the challenge it will present him.

K would spend extended periods away from his sibling, which would impair the development of a full relationship. Whilst the Mother may have greater opportunities to travel to { North West area } in the short-term, once K’s sibling is in school in Nottingham it will be difficult, if not impossible, to spend that time outside of weekends.

In evaluating a welfare outcome that would see K spend “substantial” time, as opposed to “modest” or equal time with the Father, I have in mind an arrangement in which K spend 4-6 nights per fortnight with the Father in term time.

All the benefits of K staying in Nottingham are engaged. K would spend regular and extended time with the Father, which would afford opportunities to deepen their relationship. The Father would play an important role in K’s day-to-day life. K would likely recognise himself as having a home with the Father as well as the Mother, rather than the Father’s home being place he occasionally visits outside of holidays. The substantial time would create opportunities for K to spend greater time with his paternal family with its previously identified advantages to K’s welfare. K would spend more consistent time with his sibling than if his time were divided equally between the parents, which would minimise the harm done to their connection. The Mother would be able to travel to { North West area } to spend time with the Husband’s family for more extended periods (at least until K and his sibling are both in school).

The parents would both have important roles in promoting K’s educational development. They would each be responsible for getting K to school, interacting with teachers and supporting K with homework.

An arrangement where K’s time with the Father is progressed to substantial time is likely to be change that K can manage because it will protect his relationship with his primary attachment. As K’s time with the Father develops so too would the Father’s understanding of his developmental needs.

All the disadvantages of K staying in Nottingham would be engaged. K would spend less time with the Mother than he does presently. K may experience this change as unsettling. However, I consider that will be temporary. K would spend less time with his sibling and there is a risk they may be less close than if K spent only modest time with the Father.

There is no perfect answer to this issue. Considerable tension exists between (A) promoting a relationship between K and the Father that does justice to K and is in his best interests and (B) promoting the Mother’s capacity to meet K’s needs as his primary carer in a place she is happy. The solution I determine is in K best interests will have imperfections, but is the best of the options available.

Weighing the merits of each of the realistic options I conclude that K remaining in Nottingham and having substantial time with the Father is in his best interests. I accept a relocation would benefit the Mother emotionally and have advantages for K, however I consider the benefits to K of the relocation are significantly outweighed by the disadvantages and harms that he would have to bear. I accept that denying the Mother her desire to move will be a bitter blow for her. However, I consider (and she accepted through counsel) it is one she will be able to manage. I do not consider it will compromise her parenting of K if she is required to remain in Nottingham.

In my judgment what K stands to lose by relocating is far greater than what he stands to gain. He will lose the opportunity to have deep connections with both parents, who would each be able to be a significant part of his life. Instead, he would experience a much more limited relationship with the Father, which would be heavily impacted by the onerous journey he would have to bear. I am not persuaded that the time K will spend with the Father in holidays will provide an adequate platform for K to maintain a strong relationship with the Father. In particular, a relocation will deny the opportunity for K to connect with Father as an essential person in his daily routines by being a part of K’s school life and by experiencing the short qualitatively valuable experiences of being parented by the Father on a day-to-day basis. Whilst the Father does not have approval for flexible working at this time, I consider it likely that any nursery or school K is enrolled in will have wrap-around care for parents who are unable to attend drop-off and collection at usual hours.

I find it would be far better for K to have a substantial relationship with both the parents. I reject the Father’s suggestion that there should be an equal division of K’s time because it would be challenging for K to spend such a significant period from his primary carer. It would also impose too great a restriction on the opportunity for K to develop his relationship with his sibling. The right balance is an arrangement which gradually builds K’s time with his Father, so that the Father can play a significant role in K’s life, whilst maintaining the stability of his primary attachment to the Mother. This will also afford K the opportunity to have a meaningful relationship with his wider paternal family, which would be more limited were he to relocate. Those relationships with the wider paternal family are of particular importance in circumstances where it sadly appears he will not have a meaningful relationship with his wider maternal family.

I am affirmed in the weight I have placed on the importance of K’s relationship with the Father by the conclusions of { Cafcass Employee 2 }, the first Family Court Adviser to report in this matter. In her section 7 report prepared prior to relocation being contemplated, { Cafcass Employee 2 } recommended that K spend time with the Father as frequently on alternate weekends in one month followed by three weekends in the following month (so about five weekends every two months). She also recommended K spend an additional one night with the Father in the week every week once he starts nursery. In my judgment that is a relatively high level of contact for a young child and reflects the significance of the relationship.

I consider K should live with the Mother and spend time with the Father. I consider a child arrangements order structured in that way is in K’s best interests to reflect (A) that he is primarily in the Mother’s care (noting that an unequal division of time is not a bar to the making of a shared lives with order); and (B) it reflects the Mother is K’s primary emotional attachment.

In my judgment the arrangements I will order are consistent with promoting the safety of K and the parents. Once the arrangements are finally established, they will not require the parents to meet each other. Instead, handovers will be conducted via school. To the extent it is possible and once K is enrolled in nursery, they can be conducted via nursery until then.

I will order as follows:

I invite counsel to settle the orders consistent with this judgment.

That is the judgment of the Court.