Julia Shillingford in F v M [2025] EWFC 115 (B)
29th May 2025 | Cases
Julia Shillingford, instructed by SE Solicitors, represented the Applicant father in F v M [2025] EWFC 115 (B); Children Act proceedings where the mother wished to relocate to another part of the UK.
This was a contentious private law dispute concerning a 12-year-old child, A. After a previous unsuccessful relocation application, the mother again sought to relocate A within the UK and change his school, citing concerns about bullying, in order to care for her ailing mother. The father opposed the move, claiming that the mother’s motivations were not in A’s best interests.
Both parents filed cross-allegations of harm under C1A applications, leading to a consolidated hearing. An Independent Social Worker (ISW) assessed A as emotionally immature but noted his desire to spend equal time with both parents. The ISW found that any evidence of bullying at A’s current school was historical and had been addressed.
The court determined that A’s welfare needs were being met by the current care arrangements and that his current school was meeting his educational and social needs. The mother’s relocation proposal lacked sufficient planning and research and, in particular, had failed to address the impact on A’s relationship with the father were the move to go ahead. Consequently, the court refused the mother’s application to relocate A. Additionally, to prevent further litigation that could disrupt A’s stability, the court imposed a Section 91(14) order, requiring either party to obtain the court’s permission before making future applications to vary the child arrangements before A had completed his GCSEs. This case highlights the court’s willingness to limit parental litigation when it poses a risk of harm to a child, pursuant to section 91A (2).
