FA-2025-000247 - [2025] EWHC 2437 (Fam)

Finally, with respect to Ground 3, in my judgment there is no basis for contending that the Recorder failed to consider the question of relocation and child arrangements holistically and in particular the impact that the change of week-day residence would have on the children’s relationship with Father.

Ms Stacey submits that, in the context of the issue before the court concerning relocation, the Recorder failed, contrary to the requirements articulated in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re C (Internal Relocation) [2015] EWCA Civ 1305, [2016] Fam 253, to undertake “a global, holistic, evaluation” of the children’s welfare by “balancing all of the relevant factors in the case before to decide which of the available options meets the requirement to afford paramount consideration to the welfare of the child.”

Before considering and analysing the evidence he had heard, the Recorder set out in his judgment the legal framework within which his was required to conduct the welfare exercise. In particular, at paragraph [9] he recorded:

“[9] Firstly, in deciding the case the welfare of these two children has been my paramount concern. If one looks at the Children Act, and particularly section 1, it sets out a checklist of factors for me to consider when deciding upon the welfare interests of the children.”

And at paragraph [11]:

“[11] All the evidence in the bundle, and the bundle is well over 500 pages and I have read every single page at least one (sic), but all evidence in there is admissible notwithstanding what lawyers would call its hearsay nature. And that includes the school and the local authority records, for example. However, I bear in mind that such evidence is hearsay and I give it the weight that I consider appropriate taking into account the qualities of that type of evidence. And I remind myself that if a fact is in dispute the best evidence will always be the primary evidence”

And at Paragraph [15]:

“I have read all the documents in the bundle and what follows is a summary of the live evidence that I have heard during the hearing, but I have considered this evidence in light of all the other evidence in the case and have already referred to the hearsay evidence as the school disclosure and the local authority disclosure, for example.”

Within this context, it is plain from reading the judgment as a whole that Recorder thereafter proceeded to evaluate the central issue that he had correctly identified, namely where the children were to live during the week in term time. In undertaking that task, and in a carefully structured ex tempore judgment, the Recorder identified the welfare issue to be determined, set out the legal principles governing that determination, reviewed and evaluated the evidence he had heard, made findings were necessary and then undertook a welfare analysis by reference to the factors set out in s.1(3) of the Children Act 1989, which by their nature, and in this case, led to the Recorder comparing and balancing the competing positions of the parents in arriving at a welfare decision. In doing so, and as he had expressly recognised as his task, the Recorder balanced all of the relevant evidence he had heard before deciding that living with their mother during the week during term time best met the children’s needs having regard to their welfare as his paramount consideration.

With respect to the impact on the father (insofar as it is relevant to the children’s best interests), notwithstanding the characterisation adopted in Ms Stacey’s Skeleton Argument, the Recorder had before him cogent evidence of the father’s employer’s flexibility to accommodate his childcare commitments in the form of a letter dated 14 May 2025. That letter confirmed the father’s application with respect to his work hours had been approved and that he had the option to re-apply once the court had determined the child arrangements, albeit a new application would be required. The letter of 14 May 2025 makes no mention of how likely or otherwise it is that a further application would be granted. With respect to the children, the judge evaluated the nature of the change and its impact on the children at paragraphs 45 and 56 to 61 of his judgment. The Recorder’s ultimate decision, and its impact on the time the children spend with the father, is not inconsistent with the situation regarding the father’s employment set out in the letter of 14 May 2025.

Within this context, having regard to the judgment, I am not able to accept Ms Stacey’s submission that the Recorder failed to consider the question of relocation and child arrangements holistically and in particular the impact that the change of week-day residence would have on the children’s relationship with Father.