SA v JR [2025] EWFC 279 (B) (26 August 2025)

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]

England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> SA v JR [2025] EWFC 279 (B) (26 August 2025)
URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2025/279.html
Cite as: [2025] EWFC 279 (B)

[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

		Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWFC 279 (B)
		Case No: ZW24P01655

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT WEST LONDON

West London Family Court
Gloucester House, 4 Duke Green Avenue,
Feltham, TW14 0LR

26 August 2025

B e f o r e :

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILLANS
____________________

Between:

	SA	Applicant
	- and –
	JR	Respondent

____________________

Rebecca Hodgkin instructed as Direct Access Counsel for the Applicant
Bridget McVay instructed as Direct Access Counsel for the Respondent

Hearing dates: 13 August 2025
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

This judgment was handed down electronically without attendance on 26 August 2025

His Honour Judge Willans:

Introduction

The question posed by these proceedings is as to whether the mother of a child should have permission to relocate with the child permanently to live in Dubai. This is opposed by the child's father who instead argues for the child to remain here under a 50/50 shared care order. In any event I will have to consider the child arrangement consequences of my decision.

I have considered the papers in the hearing bundle together with some limited additional documents. I have heard live evidence from the s7 reporter from CAFCASS and both parents. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for each party. I bear all of this in mind in reaching my decision.

The hearing proceeded as a wholly attended hearing. No participation directions were required. In this judgment I will refer to the child, mother, and father by their forenames and to the CAFCASS reporter (Evie Brundish), by her surname. No discourtesy is intended.

Background

The parties commenced their relationship in 2015. SA has two older children aged 17 and 20 (who continue to live with her). X, the child subject to this application, was born in [ ]2019 and is now aged 6 years. The parties separated around 6 months after X's birth. JR has two further children, aged 10 and 6, with whom he has regular contact.

The parties disagree about allegations of emotional dispute in their relationship but both concede (and Ms Brundish agrees) this has absolutely no bearing on the issues before me. It is a matter of record that consensual child arrangements have continued now for many years since the separation of the parties.

I cannot locate the exact dates (for the purpose of this judgment any minor error does not matter) but I understand SA formed a relationship with her partner approximately four years ago and they married two years ago. He is also an important part of X's life. SA's husband ("H") has had a previous relationship and there is some evidence of domestic abuse in the relationship between him and his previous partner, There is no suggestion of any abuse in the relationship with SA and this has not played a significant part in the hearing before me.

In late 2024 H sought and was offered employment in Dubai. This was a role similar to that which he had held in this country. SA agrees they took a risk in pursuing this without having clarity as to whether JR would agree for X to relocate. The role provides an enhanced income, particularly having regard to the taxation principles operating in that jurisdiction. I will return to these aspects below. H has now moved to work in Dubai.

As a result of the above SA liaised with JR as to his position on a proposed relocation. He did not agree. Accordingly on 6 October 2025 SA applied to the Court for permission to relocate. Given Dubai is not a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ("the Convention") the matter was allocated to Circuit Judge level and permission granted for the matter to be heard by a Judge sitting authorised as a Deputy Judge of the High Court.

I heard an initial directions appointment on 17 January 2025. On 14 January 2025 JR applied for a prohibited steps order and for child arrangements. At the hearing I refused applications for prohibited steps, specific issue (passport) and port alert orders. I directed the passport be held by SA's solicitors subject to further direction of the Court. I directed statements as to the issues and a section 7 report. As CAFCASS are in prioritisation in London this required 23 weeks (4 July 2025). I gave directions for expert evidence to be considered if pursued (it has not been pursued).

At that hearing I formalised contact arrangements. These were for fortnightly weekend contact with JR (Friday-Monday) and for a sharing of the holidays. As I recall this was substantially agreed save for a handover point which I was asked to resolve. My understanding is that weekend contact in one shape or another has been happening for some time, albeit with some interruptions. I believe the holiday contact had not been previously formalised. I should note the parents live some distance apart (at least a 45-minute drive but more likely 1-1.5 hours during busier parts of the day).

A Dispute Resolution Appointment (DRA) was heard by me on 18 July 2025. By that time CAFCASS had reported and were not supporting the move. Agreement could not be reached and this final hearing was fixed. I listed 1-day for final evidence and submission with judgment to follow. Unfortunately, the submissions over-run and as such this judgment has had to be put back somewhat.

The Issues

SA pursues a relocation to Dubai. She has made significant proposals for contact between JR and X on relocation and agrees to fund the same and subsidise additional trips by JR to Dubai. If she is refused permission she would oppose the suggestion of a shared care arrangement.

JR opposes the relocation. He argues for a true shared care arrangement if permission if refused, i.e. one week on and off. He struggled somewhat with the plans were permission to be granted but was clear he would want as much contact as was practicable.

The Law

I have noted the Convention above and the import the same has to this case. In fact, this issue has not featured centrally within the hearing and within submissions JR accepted the evidence of SA that she would return with X from Dubai were she to travel there in future whether for trips or to live. I have not been asked to consider making any protective orders were I to give permission to travel to Dubai.

As such this case brings into focus the clear authority guidance as to the approach that should be taken when a party seeks to permanently relocate to another jurisdiction. I consider this area of law is now very settled and as such I consider it sufficient to reference the recent decision of the Court of Appeal (Cobb LJ.) in Re O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation) [2025] EWCA Civ 888 (§80-87):

(80) An application for permanent leave to remove…is a private law application in respect of which the indisputable "and only authentic" test is that set out in section 1(1) CA 1989; the child's welfare is paramount, and the evaluation of where the child's interests truly lie is to be determined …having regard to the 'welfare checklist' in section 1(3) CA 1989…

(81) There is no presumption in favour of the applicant parent in a case which is governed by section 1 CA 1989. The circumstances in which these difficult decisions are made vary infinitely and the judge in each case must be free to weigh up the individual factors, and make whatever decision he or she considers to be in the best interests of the child…

(82) While section 1(2A) CA 1989…does not formally apply to an application under section 13 CA 1989, there is no doubt that its provision generally heightens the court's scrutiny of the proposed arrangements on an application for permanent international relocation. Notably…section 1(2A) CA 1989 expressly requires the court to consider whether a "contrary" picture is "shown", which would indicate that involvement of each parent in the child's life (in the manner proposed or at all) will not in fact "further the child's welfare"

(83) …For over a decade, there has been no, or no material, judicial annotation of this straightforward approach. As it happens, this approach now accords fully (in a way which it did not at the time of its creation) with the principles of the Washington Declaration on International Family Relocation (2010) to which the courts of England and Wales, through Thorpe LJ, subscribed fifteen years ago.

(84) Borrowing the philosophy from other areas of child law…it is now widely accepted to be important for a judge determining a relocation application to undertake "a global, holistic evaluation" of each of the options available for the child's future upbringing before deciding which of those options best meets the duty to afford paramount consideration to the child's welfare. In reality, this is "no more than shorthand for the overall, comprehensive analysis of a child's welfare seen as a whole, having regard in particular to the circumstances set out in the relevant welfare checklist…

(85) One area where there is less clarity is whether, and if so how, the court should apply a proportionality evaluation in the determination of an application for permanent international relocation…..

(86) In Re C (Internal relocation), Black LJ expressed the view that the welfare principles enshrined in domestic law (i.e., section 1(1) and 1(3) of the CA 1989) were entirely compatible with the Strasbourg jurisprudence, and observed that international or internal relocation cases were approached in a way which was "broadly in line with what is expected by the European court"…she rejected counsel's submission that the welfare evaluation should then be "subjected to a cross-check by considering whether such interference with the Article 8 rights of the parties as it involves is proportionate." She added:

… I am afraid that there also seems to me to be a real danger of the parties and the court getting so tangled up in the strands of the two separate exercises that they lose sight of what really matters for the child. All in all, therefore, in my view, matters should be approached as an analysis of the best interests of the child, whether the relocation is internal or external. Given the potential for the impact of the decision on the parents to affect the child as well, this necessarily involves a careful examination of the parents' wishes and their interests."

(87) …Vos LJ…reinforced the point, observing that the 'left behind' parent will always be able, in some measure, to pray in aid their Article 8 ECHR rights necessitating a consideration of the proportionality of any proposed interference with those rights; he added that "that consideration should be an essential part of the balancing exercise itself and should not be undertaken separately so as to disrupt a joined up decision-making process"

I have previously considered the application of Practice Direction 12J: Family Procedure Rules 2010 to this case and determined that the arrangements ordered are ones which are safe for all involved. This continues to be the case.

The witnesses

I was impressed with Ms Brundish. She gave clear and realistic evidence. She explained her judgment and recommendations and was neither evasive nor dogmatic. She accepted limited experience of international relocation cases but this did not show in the clarity of her reasoning. She was challenged as to whether he account of meetings was correct and I consider dealt with these points head on and comprehensively. My sense was that it was SA who was mis-recalling, a point which does not deserve particular criticism. I suspect these points would not have arisen had the recommendations been in her favour.

I was also impressed by SA. It is quite clear she has worked hard to keep the relationship between X and JR functioning even during difficult points in the relationship. She told me as to how she was left with a very young child (and of course two older children) when JR left. This must have been very challenging yet despite the impact this must have had the relationship has been maintained to X's benefit. I found her evidence balanced although she naturally found it easy to see the positives of the move over the negatives of staying.

JR was equally slanted in my opinion and I give him the same latitude as SA. This decision is impactful for him and his family life and it is therefore very easy to view all aspects through the prism which supports his case. As with SA I was impressed by his commitment to X and in broad terms found him a thoughtful witness. This was not a case with meaningful fact finding and I was not required to resolve the limited disputes between the parties concerning their history. At times I felt he spoke without sensitivity to SA. He did not appear to sense how his words would appear to be disparaging of the care she gives to X. This reinforced to me the commitment SA has shown in supporting the relationship.

Overall, I bear in mind the potential for both parents to shape their evidence to their case. This might be strategic: in that it may be thought in JR's interests to overplay the difficulties and SA to underplay the difficulties in the relationship. By this route they could seek to argue their case on relocation highlighting why it will not work or will work. But it is also possible this is subconscious in that each have invested a significant amount into their case and believe in it and are more likely to see the positives of the move/downplay the negatives (SA) or see the negative of the move/downplay the positives (JR). I keep this in mind.

Discussion and Analysis

I am in no doubt this is a well planned and thought through proposal. This is not a fanciful wish to pursue a dream without the resources in place to achieve the same. In this case H has moved, has employment and accommodation and there is a strong foundation for the family to settle. I accept there are some steps still required, confirming a school place for example, but on the evidence it is clear to me this will not be an issue. Furthermore, the income resources will permit the proposed contact arrangement. I should make clear H's post will permit a good level of subsidised travel on relocation.

I am also persuaded the move is not motivated to limit or restrict the relationship between X and his father, although this may be the impact of the same. The evidence demonstrates the consistent support SA has given to contact. I accept there have been some issues along the way but these needs to be seen in context and with a view over the whole period since separation. A marker of this is JR's acceptance of there being no need for additional measures if permission is granted. I have considered the proposals made by SA should permission be granted and I accept these amount to a significant sharing of holiday periods. This also supports my conclusion.

I am not persuaded this move is required for financial reasons. I mention this as SA did raise this argument in support of the move. Whilst I do not intend to carry out a detailed financial review I make the following observations:

i) I accept the move will enhance the family income. I accept H will effectively 'bring home' twice that which he previously earned in the UK. In the UK he netted around £2500-3000pm (£2,750pm mid-point). In Dubai allowing for the accommodation allowance, he will net about £6,400pm (£1 = 4.95AED).

ii) SA told me she earns £500-2000pm (£1,250pm mid-point) and would be able to do some part time work in Dubai. However, she also stated she would not have to work and so I assume her income would be closer to the lower end in Dubai. Taken together they would therefore go from £4,000pm in UK to £7,000pm in Dubai.

iii) However, the plan is to maintain the UK accommodation and rent in Dubai. In evidence I was told the UK rent was £1,700pm. This was corrected in submissions to £1,050pm. The accommodation is secure housing association accommodation and the latter figure feels about right. I was told H is currently only using half of his housing allowance (he can save the rest) awaiting the decision and it was clear this would be increased if the family were to join him. I assume this would increase to at least ¾ of the allowance: £2,850pm.

iv) Putting this together the family would have had £4,000pm in the UK minus £1,050 rent = £2,950pm. In Dubai they will have £7,000pm minus £3,900 rent = £3,100pm. It is not lost on me that as things currently stand income is close to £7,000pm (taking SA's income at lowest level) with rent of £2,950 (having regard to SA's evidence that half the rent allowance is currently used) leaving a disposable sum of close to £4,000.

As can be seen the net effect is relatively modest, and on one view better if there is no relocation. I appreciate there will be a range of other costs that may balance one way or the other. It may be the cost of food in Dubai is lower. However, the costs of two properties (Council tax, electricity etc may outbalance that). My conclusion is that the financial positives of the move are overstated in the light of the intention to keep both properties. I understand why that is the goal as the accommodation is secure in the UK. My conclusion is that there is no financial imperative to move and that the financial benefits, such as they are, do not touch materially on X's welfare interests.

I am not persuaded the move is justified by reference to environmental circumstances surrounding the family in London. I was provided a range of metrics for the family postcode which suggest higher level of criminality and anti-social behaviour. This was contrasted with what would be available in Dubai. I did not find this evidence particularly persuasive. First, because the metrics [152] were in fact for the local high road rather than the cul-de-sac in which the family live. Statistics for a high road with shops are bound to have skewed statistics of this sort. I note the overarching figure for this main street remains average in any event when compared to other local areas in England and Wales. Whilst I accept there may remain a stark distinction between London and Dubai and that this may be an attractive feature for SA raising a young boy I do not lose sight of the broader cultural benefits that may arise growing up in a London. I also do not lose sight of the fact that X is of mixed heritage which is unlikely to be replicated in Dubai. Comparisons of this sort are replete with challenges and I take the view the position is more balanced than suggested by SA.

I considered the criticism that the s7 did not visit the home and thus was not aware of these issues. I accept it is not accepted practice for a s7 reporter to visit the home in all cases. I doubt very much whether a visit would in fact have impacted on the reporter as suggested. For the avoidance of doubt there are no issues raised with the home itself. I reject this criticism.

I considered the opportunities for contact on relocation and if no relocation. One feature of relevance was the non-alignment of the school calendars in UK and Dubai [166]. It can be seen the holidays between the jurisdictions are not in sync and only overlap to the extent of the Summer holiday (around 4 weeks) and Christmas (around 2 weeks). Other than this the sync is rather hit and miss with up to a week at Easter and occasionally an overlapping half term in May (when Eid coincides with Whitsun Half Term). As a result, were X to relocate his opportunity for travelling to this country to see his father might be limited to Summer, Christmas, and Easter holidays with occasional add-on dates from time to time. This could be supplemented were JR to avail himself of the offer of support in travelling to Dubai. There are issues with this. I do not consider the £200 offer of support for accommodation would cover more than a limited time period. I accept SA might be able to offer subsidised flight costs although she and her family will also need access to the same resources for their own travel plans which will require them to return to this country. I accept the evidence of JR that he may only be able to take this option up on a limited basis as he would not be able to work remotely whilst in Dubai for reasons linked to the sector in which he is employed.

I have regard to the relationships X has and the respective importance to him of the same. X's key relationships are with his parents. I agree his primary relationship is with his mother with whom he has lived throughout his life, but he shares an important bond with his father which is of real importance to him. For the avoidance of doubt SA does not intend to relocate herself whether or not permission is given for X to travel.

He does have a range of other important relationships which may be impacted by the decision I make. First, there are his half-siblings and particularly those on his maternal side. They have grown up with him throughout his life and this will be a significant relationship which is likely to be closer than with the paternal half-siblings. However, these half-siblings are now 17 and 20 and not very far from fully independent life. This period will lead to an important and different relationship and it would not be surprising for the relationship to become more occasional. I note these relationships will likely continue if permission is not granted but will be impacted (as the 20-year-old will not travel) if permission is given. But for reasons I set out these are in fact changing relationships and I place reduced weight on them as a result. Turning to the paternal half-siblings I place these secondary but they have importance and in reality given the age of the children (6 and 10) these will be important relationships for X. I accept these relationships will be significantly impacted by a move as he regular alternative weekends will come to an end and contact will likely be limited to the periods of holiday contact which will be spaced out during the year.

X has an important relationship with H who has been a part of his life during his childhood period of memory. My understanding is that he fulfils a full stepparent role and has a good relationship with X. I appreciate this relationship will have been impacted over the last year by H's move. It appears SA has done her best to maintain the relationship but this must be secondary to her and X living with H.

I also have regard to the wider family on both sides. These relationships are also important but less so than those noted above.

The proposed move will have a significant impact on the relationship X shares with his father, paternal half-siblings, and wider family on both sides. It will permit the family relationship with H to be maintained.

I have also considered the impact on SA of a refusal. This is not a case in which it is suggested the impact will be such as to have a profound impact on X but I accept it will impact on SA negatively and this may have an indirect impact on X. It is wholly understandable that SA wishes to join her husband in Dubai. For her there are many obvious benefits of the move and the loss of the opportunity will have a real impact on her. Whilst I have discounted her arguments at a financial level I accept she has made an emotional investment in the move. I suspect the plan of the move has led to a heightening of the perceived benefits of going rather than staying and this will have had further emotional impact.

But against this must be set the understanding of H and SA that this plan was a risk and that there were no guarantees that she would be able to join him. The move was not a necessity and H's employment was given up pursuing the post in Dubai. I accept one cannot rule out a return given it seems H is an experienced individual in his field. This is reinforced by his ability to obtain the post in Dubai. The family now find themselves separated but it is possible this can be made to work. The distances are manageable and permit regular travel between the jurisdictions. This is a state of affairs which is by no means unique. The availability of subsidised travel supports this potential as does the ability to maintain accommodation in both jurisdictions.

In reaching my conclusions I was not persuaded by the arguments as to possible redeployment of H. I consider the contractual paragraph relied upon in this regard was little more than a conventional paragraph granting an employer the discretion to transfer an employee. I consider it has no greater significance than that.

When considering the evidence, I had regard to the travel distances between the parents. I accepted the evidence of JR as to this being a 45-minute journey by car. However, I do not consider this remains realistic during the rush hour periods when X would be travelling to school. On those occasions the travel time is likely to be twice that if not more. I consider this view was supported by some limited evidence I heard as to the time the father and X are up when JR is delivering X to school. I make clear these distances are capable of being managed but they are far from the ideal expected for a child of X's age.

I have considered what the alternate weekend and half the holidays would mean in terms of nights spent with JR. On a 13-week school holiday regime JR would have 19-20 weekends (57-60 nights) and 6.5 weeks (45 nights). This would total around 100 nights per year in contrast to exact sharing at 182 nights. Travelling from Dubai this might reduce to 5 full weeks a year (35 nights) with possibly two visits to Dubai (10 nights?). This would total around 45 nights per annum.

I have regard to X's wishes and feelings. There was some ambiguity in this regard as set out within the s7 reporting. At times he spoke about wanting to travel but was also clear as to missing his father. When the conclusions of the report were shared with him he explained he 'did not want to live in Dubai but wanted to visit there.' I am mindful of his age and bear in mind his wishes and feelings should be brought into account having regard to his age and understanding. He may well be sub-consciously impacted by knowing his mum's feelings in any event. I have no doubt his central bond is to SA and there is the potential for wholly unintended influence. This would not be surprising given the impact being separated from H is having on her. Viewed from any perspective the proposal would have significant implications for X. I consider that whilst he can express a view on the plan he does not have the maturity to fully understand the implications and ramifications of the plan.

I have regard to the impact any change in circumstances will have on X. I accept he is likely to be a resilient child and has the potential to cope with / come to terms with the effect of the move. In my assessment a child of his age would be expected to be able to do this. Many children do. However, this does not change the impact he will experience of losing, or having a change in, the relationship with those identified above. At his age regular contact is likely to be more relevant for X than significantly spaced-out contact. I will return to this point below. I am mindful as to the potential risk of further damage being done to the adult relationship whichever decision I make. Refusal may cause SA to resent JR and this could impact on contact issues. Approval may cause different conflicts between the parents. However, my assessment is that they have ben able to maintain a working relationship based around their commitment to X and their acceptance he benefits from their joint involvement in his life. This does give grounds for optimism.

I have regard to X's characteristics. This importantly includes his age (see above) and his cultural and heritage identity which I have also referenced above. I further have regard to the blended families he is part of and the relevance of each to him. He has no particular medical or other needs.

I am in no doubt SA is a competent and loving mother to X. It seems clear she has provided a safe and emotionally warm home in which he has grown. She has accepted the importance to X of a continuing relationship with JR even though this may have been hard for her at times. I accept she will continue to work to make contact a success whatever decision is made. I did hear some criticism of her role as mother. There were questions as to school attendance and some other points. I did not find any of this helpful and it did not impact on my evaluation of her as a mother doing her very best to raise her son successfully.

JR is a committed and loving father as shown by the clear bond identified by Ms Brundish. It is important to keep in mind that the roles of the parents should complement each other providing added value for X. I sense at times this has not always been the case and I suspect the situation has not been helped by these proceedings which has caused each party to take a stark position as to the way forward. That is a shame but I do not seek to be over critical as I consider the parents have the ability to move beyond the proceedings. I recognise the current contact regime is one which by its very nature accepts JR to be a competent parent for X for those periods when they are together.

I do not consider this is a case in which X is at risk of harm.

As with most cases X's needs, and his emotional needs in particular, are central to my assessment and decision making. I acknowledge his educational needs and it may be the private opportunity for him in Dubai offers some positives over his current school. However, this is not to disparage the education he is receiving at this time. I note there have been some 'bullying' issues in his school. My sense of this is that this is more a feature of the characteristics of some other younger children in the school rather than a classic pattern of mistreatment. It appears this may have reduced towards the end of the last school year. X has physical needs but these are being met and will continue to be met whatever decision I reach.

X shares an emotional need for security and stability and predictable and available care givers. He needs to know his parents love him and that there are there for him to help with any problems he may have. He has a need to know they respect each other even though they are not together. X will have no memory of his parents being together. His life experience has been shaped by their separate homes and lives and as such he has not been overly negatively impacted by conflict at the time of separation.

There is good evidence that the parents have worked through their challenges successfully as separated parents. The fact that X has been able to establish a firm and strong bond with each of them (and other besides) is a testament to this. They need to reflect on what they have achieved and to keep in mind at all times what has been working for X. In the future there are bound to be conflicts from time to time but there capacity to put X first should be held on to by both of them. This will mean opportunities for criticism or carping should be avoided. X will pick upon on this and may feel compelled to choose between his parents to make his life easier. It would be a great loss for the parent who 'lost out' and more particularly for X were he to find himself in such a position. But again, I have grounds for optimism in this regard.

The emotional challenge in this case will be how X will cope with change (if it is endorsed) in his relationship with his father and those left behind. But I also have to bear in mind the emotional impact that may arise if I refuse the relocation. This will inevitably impact on SA and there is the potential for this to have an indirect emotional impact on X, given her role as his primary carer. I am less troubled by the lifestyle benefits and losses which have been placed before me. They are dressings on what is a loving home.

In short I am being asked to make a decision with profound implications for X's family life. As such my decision must have regard to both the positives and negatives of each option placed before me. In the passages above I have pinpointed those matters which stand out to me but I summarise and highlight as follows:

i) If X relocates it will allow SA to fully maintain her family life with H and X. There are obvious positive benefits to X of his mother being content and of re-establishing the full family home. There are positives linked to the trip. The schooling aspect is positive and it will give X the chance to widen his understanding of the world and different cultures. There are some financial benefits which have been identified.

ii) But this will be at the price of a very restricted relationship with his father and other important individuals in his life. Whilst one can visualise how this might be worked on the page this provides only a limited emotional insight of what it might mean for X not to see his father for several months at a time.

iii) If relocation is refused X will continue as he has been. His relationships will be maintained and his contact with his father remain a significant and central part of his daily life. But this will have a negative impact on the family life SA has established with H and will undermine the dreams they have for their future.

Conclusions

In this case I have reached the conclusion that X's welfare should lead me to refuse the application to relocate. This has been a balanced decision as I accept there are positives to the move and I agree it is a pragmatic plan with genuine motivations.

However, I have assessed it will have a significant and negative impact on X in reducing his relationship with his JR. This is a very important for X and I am not satisfied the proposals (albeit as good as they could be in the circumstances) will in fact meet his emotional needs. I judge he really has no sense of what the move will mean for him besides the obvious attractions. But very quickly it would be apparent the loss he had suffered in the time he would spend with his father (and paternal family). I consider contact periods in Easter, Summer, and Christmas for a child of this age would not be sufficient to maintain the relationship and thus would be damaging to his welfare.

In reaching my conclusions I consider the relationship between SA, X and H can be maintained notwithstanding the refusal. The family made the decision knowing SA and X might not be able to follow. An international employment of this sort has become increasingly common in this day and age and this family have made it work for the last year. Curiously, the conclusion I favour is the one which appears to likely maximise their resources. But I do not lose sight of the importance to X of a strong relationship between SA and H. I address this below.

In reaching my conclusions I have considered the evidence of Ms Brundish. It can be seen on a close reading of that report that I have shared and endorsed many of the views contained therein. She considered the case finely balanced but ultimately was swayed by the centrality of the relationship X has with JR and the loss that would be experienced in this regard on relocation. I agree.

I have favoured the position taken by JR although there is within this judgment limited fundamental disagreement with the evidence given by SA. Ultimately, I understand why her assessment differs from mine but this does not change the conclusions I have reached.

I have considered the application for a shared lives with order. I do not agree with this. I consider the current arrangements are working and I can see no child related benefit to justify making this change. Indeed, there are obvious negatives associated with the regular weekday travel that would arise. I am sure JR would do his upmost to make this work but it is a wholly unnecessary price to pay for a change which is simply not required.

X should live with SA. This is the reality on the ground and will support the contact proposals I make below.

The current order provides for alternate weekends (Fri-Mon) with JR. This will continue – although it will be suspended during school holidays to permit extended periods of time with each parent.

I consider there is a need to modify the holiday arrangements. I recognise they are in their infancy. I have recognised the importance to X of the tripartite relationship between SA, H, and himself. The holiday arrangements need to be structured to support that relationship.

This requires a modest change as follows:

i) With regards to the summer holiday, SA shall have 4 weeks and JR 2 weeks. SA will be permitted to have 4 consecutive weeks if she wishes failing which she will have two times 2 consecutive weeks. SA must make her election by the end of January each year.

ii) SA will have the half term holidays each year.

iii) Easter and Christmas will be shared.

This will maximise the ability for the family to be together. It will permit X to travel to Dubai for at least 9 weeks a year and of course H will be able to travel here. SA will also be able to travel to Dubai when X is not with her. On my understanding that would be a very significant increase on time spent together in the period September 2024 – August 2025.

I give permission to SA to travel and remove X from the jurisdiction during such trips. This was not a controversial point between the parties and is plainly important for X.

These are my conclusions. I will send this judgment and a proposed order to the parties. This judgment can be shared with JR and SA. I will leave Ms Brundish to share my conclusions with X at her discretion. I would hope the parents could support X to understand why I have made this decision.

This judgment will be handed down electronically without attendance at 4pm on 26 August 2025. If the parties require a follow up hearing then they should notify my clerk. I will accept any corrections or requests for clarification by 4pm on 25 August 2025.

I have also forwarded an anonymised version of the judgement which will be published. Any further redactions/observations by 5pm on 25 August 2025.

I do wish X the very best as I do his parents. He is the product of their parenting and a credit to them. I know they will not lose sight of this.

His Honour Judge Willans

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2025/279.html

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> SA v JR [2025] EWFC 279 (B) (26 August 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2025/279.html Cite as: [2025] EWFC 279 (B)

		West London Family Court Gloucester House, 4 Duke Green Avenue, Feltham, TW14 0LR
		26 August 2025