Will its findings have any bearing on the UK courts’ approach to applications by parents wishing to relocate abroad? The research involved interviewing parents about their experiences of life when one parent has relocated with a child/children of the family. Interviews took place with parents who had applied to relocate (successfully or unsuccessfully); with parents who opposed the other’s application to relocate and with parents whose children had relocated.
The focus of the research was the practical issue of how contact is maintained between a parent and child once that child has relocated. Where relevant, it considered the original court order setting out the ongoing contact and whether that order had been adhered to. If not, the research aimed to establish why not.
In the UK, judges are first and foremost guided in their decision making by what is in the best interests of the children. Alongside this primary consideration, judges place significance on the impact of a refusal to relocate on the primary carer. A detrimental impact on the primary carer is considered to impact detrimentally on the child or children in question.
Applications by parents to relocate are approached differently in different jurisdictions. The approaches are often classified as pro-location, anti-location or neutral. This jurisdiction can be considered a pro-location jurisdiction. Parents wishing to relocate in other jurisdictions such as Australian and South Africa will find it harder to succeed. The key findings are perhaps unsurprising. Whilst an order of the court may have provided for regular ongoing contact throughout the child’s minority (often several times each year), the reality can be somewhat different. This can be for many reasons. Most commonly, the parent who has relocated does not support ongoing contact and obstructs it; the cost is prohibitive (both in travelling and employing lawyers to help with enforcing orders); the travelling time is a strain and children find it hard to simply pick up with a parent they have not seen for many months. Parents also establish new family units and this places an extra strain and dimensions to the arrangements for contact.
Parents wishing to pursue contact have also encountered difficulties because the local laws of the country in which the child is living apply once the child becomes habitually resident there. This difference in approach often leads to a different outcome, particularly when combined with a change in everybody’s circumstances by the time the arrangements are reviewed.
For all of these reasons, many parents (most commonly fathers) and their children lose contact. Certainly very few interviewed reported contact taking place as envisaged or ordered when the child originally relocated.
This is one of the first extensive papers available to solicitors, parents and those involved in advising parents faced with the issue of relocation. It is well received and creating debate within the legal and wider community. It now remains to be seen whether a different approach will be considered in the knowledge that the common outcome is a child will not see its non resident parent as frequently as is envisaged by a judge when giving the leave to remove. The focus might also be on ways of ensuring cheaper and more readily available means of enforcement of orders.
If you are interested in reading more, the full report can be obtained via Reunite’s website: http://www.reunite.org
Claire Molyneux