Summary
The welfare proceedings were in respect of two children. The parents were not married, but had both parental responsibility. They all were living in England for a long period of time.
The parties to the proceedings were both German nationals, having relatives in Germany.
The proceedings were initiated by the mother. The court had to consider her application to permanently relocate along with her two children from the north west of England to Germany.
On 2nd December 2013, HHJ Roddy, sitting at the Manchester County Court, refused the mother’s application.
An appeal was made by the mother. The appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal. In this context, Lord Justice Ryder held:
“15 […]I have come to the conclusion that the order must be set aside and the application re-heard, I do not propose to express any detailed view about the same, save to say that a relatively superficial view was taken of accommodation that was available in Germany and also a superficial view of the financial needs and obligations of the parties to each other and the employment prospects of the mother in Germany. Likewise, the strength of, that is the nature and extent of the relationship of each parent and the children, was relatively superficially addressed. Those questions, alongside other welfare factors, need to be re-explored without what became the dominant question of motivation which became decisive in the way that it did.
16 Mr Rowley has rightly reminded this court of our repeated strictures in relation to interference with first instance judgments and the unique position that such a judge has in relation to the witnesses she has heard. We have borne those observations very carefully in mind. The conclusion to which this judge came went beyond that broad spectrum and I regret to have to conclude she misdirected herself on a key issue.” [15-16]
It was further noted by Lord Justice Ryder that:
“[7] If I have any criticism, it is that the import[ance] of Brussels II Revised as an instrument governing the applicability, recognition and enforcement of matrimonial orders across EU member states was not given sufficient emphasis, but I would not have allowed the appeal on that ground alone.” [7]