When does an appellate court interfere with a relocation decision? The Court of Appeal has provided a clear answer – Jason Green in S-O (Children), Re (Relocation and Prohibited Steps Order) [2026] EWCA Civ 998
3rd Aug 2026 | Cases
Jason Green was instructed by instructed by TV Edwards for the successful Appellant mother in S-O (Children), Re (Relocation and Prohibited Steps Order) [2026] EWCA Civ 998; a reminder from the Court of Appeal that welfare evaluation requires more than identifying the risks of relocation, it demands a thorough comparison of all realistic options.
The Court of Appeal allowed a mother’s appeal against the refusal of her application to relocate her six-year-old daughter to a Gulf State and discharged a Prohibited Steps Order preventing her teenage son from visiting her there.
Lord Justice Moylan held that the trial judge’s welfare analysis was fundamentally flawed because it failed to undertake the required comparative assessment of the competing welfare options, focusing almost exclusively on the disadvantages of relocation while overlooking key evidence, including the Independent Social Worker’s recommendation that relocation would best meet the younger child’s emotional needs by enabling consistent day-to-day care from her primary attachment figure.
The Court also found there was insufficient evidence to justify maintaining the Prohibited Steps Order, particularly after the mother accepted that her son should remain living in England with his father. The relocation application was remitted for a complete rehearing before a High Court judge, with none of the original findings preserved.
