Shared residence and relocation

ETS v BT [2009] EWCA Civ 20

In Re E (Residence: Imposition of conditions) [1997] 2 FLR 638, the Court of Appeal held that where the court intends to make a residence order in favour of an entirely suitable parent, a condition of residence was an unwarranted imposition upon the right of the parent to choose where he/she would live within the UK, or with whom. There may be exceptional cases, for example where the court is concerned about the ability of the parent to be granted a residence order to be a satisfactory carer. In the present case, the Court of Appeal held it would be wrong in principle to apply different criteria to the question of internal relocation simply because there was a shared residence order. Such an order is an important factor, but is not a trump card preventing relocation. In each case, the court must examine the underlying factual matrix and decide in all the circumstances of the case whether or not it is in the child’s interest to relocate with the parent who wishes to move. The separated parents of a four-year-old girl both lived in North London and there was a shared residence order. The mother wished to move with her daughter to the village of Chew Magna in Somerset where she had found a job. The father, who played a substantial role in the girl’s life, claimed that such a move would seriously disrupt his relationship with his daughter and indeed was designed to minimise his role in her life. The father could not of course prevent the mother from moving to Chew Magna, but he sought to prevent her taking the child. The Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s decision not to impose conditions on the residence order, but to increase the amount of time the child should spend with her father, thereby precluding the mother’s move to Somerset.