Relocation Cases: When a Judge Gets the Balancing Exercise Wrong

An international move after separation can reshape a child’s daily life: where they live, who cares for them, their schooling and how they maintain relationships with family. In England and Wales, the court’s task is not to decide which parent has the stronger claim. It must decide what best serves the child’s welfare.

A recent relocation child Court of Appeal decision, Re S-O (Children) [2026] EWCA Civ 998, highlights an important part of that task: comparing the realistic options, rather than examining the proposed move in isolation.

The Court of Appeal overturned a refusal of a mother’s application to relocate her daughter abroad. It did not decide that the move should be allowed. Instead, it ordered an urgent rehearing because the original decision had not sufficiently assessed the competing welfare options.

Important: This article provides general information about family law in England and Wales. It is not legal advice. The right approach depends on the facts, evidence and orders in each case.

What happened in Re S-O?

The mother applied to relocate her six-year-old daughter, C, to live with her in a Gulf State. The parents disagreed about whether C should move. The father’s alternative proposal was for C to live with him in England and spend school holidays with her mother.

The mother was already working abroad and travelling between that country and London. An independent social worker said that C’s need for consistent day-to-day care from her mother was an important factor. The social worker also considered the welfare impact of refusal, including the possibility that the existing, fragmented care arrangements would continue.

The judge refused relocation, focusing principally on the risks and disadvantages of the move. She did not fully assess what would happen if the application were refused or examine the father’s proposal that C live with him. The Court of Appeal found that this was not enough. Those questions had to be considered as part of the same overall welfare decision, not left “for another day”.

The Court ordered a rehearing before a different judge. It stressed that it was not expressing a view on whether relocation should ultimately be granted. It also discharged a separate prohibited steps order preventing the mother’s teenage son from travelling to visit her abroad.

Read the Court of Appeal judgment in Re S-O.

The welfare principle: what the court must decide

The child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration when deciding questions about their upbringing. There is no automatic presumption that a parent who wishes to move should be allowed to do so, or that a child should always remain in England.

Instead, the court considers the child’s individual circumstances and the realistic alternatives. Depending on the case, those alternatives may include:

• the child moving abroad with the applicant;
• the child remaining in England under the current arrangements, or revised ones; and
• the child living primarily with the parent opposing the move.

Each option must be considered for its own benefits and disadvantages, then compared with the alternatives. That is the welfare balancing exercise emphasised in Re S-O, drawing on earlier authorities including Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Case) [2015] EWCA Civ 882 and Re G (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation) [2013] EWCA Civ 965.

A decision should not simply list concerns about the proposed move and treat “no relocation” as if nothing else needs to change. If the current arrangements depend on a parent’s frequent travel, for example, the court may need to consider whether they can realistically continue and what that means for the child’s care.

Equally, the court must weigh the possible disadvantages of moving, which may include disruption to schooling, reduced in-person time with a parent, separation from wider family and practical difficulties enforcing arrangements abroad.

What are “reasonable proposals” for relocation?

A relocation application should be supported by a practical, child-focused plan. The court needs enough detail to understand what life would look like after the move and how the child’s important relationships and needs would be supported.

“Reasonable proposals” are not a separate legal test that guarantees permission. Nor does a well-presented plan decide the case by itself. The proposals are evidence for the court’s assessment of the child’s welfare, alongside the impact of refusing the move and the other available options.

A helpful plan may address:

• Home and care: where the child would live, who would provide daily care and what support is available.
• Education and health: proposed school arrangements, any additional needs and access to healthcare.
• Contact: how the child would maintain meaningful relationships with the parent remaining in England, siblings and other significant people.
• Travel: journey times, costs, frequency, supervision if needed and who would arrange or pay for trips.
• Communication: a realistic plan for calls and online contact, suited to the child’s age.
• Legal and practical safeguards: relevant arrangements for consent, travel and the recognition or enforcement of orders in the destination country.
• The applicant parent’s circumstances: work, finances, housing and any changes that may affect the plan.

Evidence should support the proposals where possible. This could include school information, accommodation details, travel estimates, work arrangements and expert evidence about the law or practical enforcement in the destination country. A plan should be candid about obstacles, not just emphasise benefits.

If you oppose relocation: focus on the child and the alternatives

A parent opposing a move should explain how it is likely to affect the child, not rely only on the fact that they do not consent or that the move would be difficult for them personally.

Consider setting out:

• what the child’s life and care would look like if they remain in England;
• the effect of reduced face-to-face time with you and other family members;
• how the child’s schooling, health, routine and emotional needs may be affected;
• specific concerns about the proposed plan, supported by evidence where available;
• practical issues with travel, communication or enforcing arrangements abroad; and
• a realistic alternative care plan, if you say the child should live with you.

The alternative needs to be properly explained. In Re S-O, the Court of Appeal noted that the father’s proposal for C to live with him had not been addressed in the original judgment. The case illustrates why a court needs to assess the actual options put forward, rather than compare the proposed move only with an undefined continuation of the status quo.

Common problems that may make a decision appealable

A parent may disagree with the outcome without there being a legal error. Appeals are not simply a chance to have the same evidence reconsidered by another judge. However, Re S-O shows how an inadequate welfare analysis can undermine a decision.

Potential problems may include:

• assessing the disadvantages of moving but not the welfare consequences of refusing;
• failing to compare the realistic options side by side;
• leaving arrangements after refusal to be decided later, when they are central to the welfare decision;
• overlooking a parent’s alternative care proposal;
• not engaging with important evidence, including independent or expert evidence; or
• giving reasons that do not explain why one option better meets the child’s needs.

Whether a decision can be appealed depends on the circumstances and the applicable procedure. Anyone considering an appeal should seek legal advice promptly, as time limits apply.

The lesson from Re S-O

The Court of Appeal did not establish a new preference for international relocation. Its central message is about how decisions should be made: identify the realistic futures for the child, examine the advantages and disadvantages of each, and explain why one option best promotes that child’s welfare.

For parents, that means preparing evidence and proposals that address both outcomes. A relocation applicant should explain how the move would work for the child and what refusal would mean. A parent opposing the move should identify specific welfare concerns and, where relevant, offer a workable alternative.

For more on child-focused family court decisions, read our article on Re C and the child-focused courts. You can also read our guide to child arrangement orders and stability.

Tyndel Solicitors advises parents on relocation disputes, child arrangements and family proceedings. Visit our Family Law service page to learn more.

Request a Free Consultation

If you are considering an international move with your child, or responding to a relocation application, contact Tyndel Solicitors to discuss your circumstances.

Telephone: 0208 154 3131
Email: [email protected]
Office: 58 Peregrine Road, Ilford, IG6 3SZ
Opening hours: Monday to Friday, 10:00–18:00. Closed weekends and bank holidays.