- /
- /
- /
Re A (A Child: Joint Residence/Parental Responsibility) [2008] EWCA Civ 867, CA SIR MARK POTTER (THE PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION), LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER and SIR ROBIN AULD
The mother and the respondent began a relationship at about the same time that she fell pregnant. At first it was assumed that the child (H) was his, and he was brought up as such. The relationship broke down two years later and the father made an application for a parental responsibility order. In the course of those proceedings it emerged that he was not the father. However the respondent continued with his application. M wanted to move to the South Coast and claimed Mr A tried to control her. The Guardian submitted it would not be in H’s best interest for M to move to South Coast, because of this could marginalise F’s contact and excessive travel involved. The psychologist, on the other hand emphatically stated in evidence that it was in H’s best interests that there be a move from his present home to the South Coast because of the impact on the mother of living in the same area as Mr A and, through her, as the primary carer for H, upon H as well.
After lengthy, contested proceedings, the Recorder awarded joint parental responsibility and residence but also allowed the mother to move away from the area. She was ordered to make H available for contact with Mr A every alternate weekend, Mr A also having generous and detailed holiday contact. The Recorder stated that the change of circumstances in moving to the South Coast could mean difficulties in seeing Mr A, but that those difficulties could be overcome if Mr A made a commitment to having a base on the South Coast. He was to have his fortnightly contact in the area of the mother’s home and only travelling with him to his own home during summer holidays or half term.
The mother appealed against that order on a number of grounds including that the Recorder had i) inappropriately linked the question of the mother’s relocation to the question of parental responsibility: ii) had erred in principle in making a shared residence order: iii) unduly favoured the respondent: and iv) orders emphasising the respondent’s role as “father” undermined the mother’s role as biological parent.
The President of the Family Division, in rejecting the appeal concludes that the Recorder had rightly made the order as the relocation threatened to marginalise the respondent in his role as father.
