If there is no court order stating who the child lives with, the law doesn't specifically require written permission to take the child out of the UK. However, it's essential to get permission from everyone with parental responsibility to avoid committing the crime of child abduction, even if the other parent doesn't have parental responsibility. It's a good idea to get written permission before leaving the country with the child, regardless of whether there's a court order or not.

(i) They may face a request to provide an undertaking that they will not relocate until an agreement or court order is obtained.

(ii) The other parent might initiate an application for a Prohibited Steps Order (PSO) to prevent the relocation.

(iii) The other parent could also seek a Specific Issue Order (SIO), such as demanding that the child continues attending a particular school, which could effectively thwart the relocation until an agreement or court decision is reached concerning the child's arrangements.

In such situations, the burden rests on the parent who may be left behind due to the relocation to substantiate the necessity for a PSO or SIO.

Should the parent intending to relocate within the UK proceed without the other parent's consent, the left-behind parent has the option to seek a peremptory return of the child or children. However, it is crucial for this application to be made urgently and promptly after discovering that the child or children have relocated. Failure to act expeditiously may lead to the left-behind parent facing a "fait accompli" situation, where the court considers the move and the children's arrangements from a welfare perspective, potentially after the relocation has already taken place.

• The likely effect on him or her of any change in circumstances – the parent seeking the change must show that such a change is in the child’s interests.

• Any harm which he or she has suffered or is at risk of suffering. This can include harm from primary carer being unhappy, harm from severance of relationship with left behind parent or harm from the loss of their life here.

• How capable each of his or her parents (or any other person the court considers relevant) is of meeting his or her needs.

• Is the motivation to move genuine?

• Demonstrate that there are practical proposals that are well researched and investigated – the devil is in the detail (practice the alleged travel arrangements, try out and time the proposed new school run at the right time of day etc.). 4 4139-1760-9250.1

• Is the opposition to the move motivated by genuine concern? What is the detriment to the non-resident parent and can it be offset?

• What would be the impact of refusal on the parent wishing to relocate?

• To what extent can contact continue and what would be the impact of the reduction in contact with the left behind parent? Can the parent seeking to move be trusted to promote the relationship with the other parent – has history demonstrated this? What is the quality of the contact? How will it work in practice given the ages and stages of the children?

• Could the left behind parent also move? What connections, if any, does the other parent have with the new area? How easy or difficult would it be to establish some? Is there a language barrier? Are there any visa/ immigration requirements? Could the other parent work (if they intend to do so)? What would be the impact on the other parent of separation from his home environment?

The Guidelines to be followed in relocation cases. She set them out as follows:

(a) The welfare of the child is always paramount.

(b) There is no presumption in favour of the applicant parent.

(c) The reasonable proposals of the parent with a residence order wishing to live abroad carry great weight.

(d) Consequently the proposals have to be scrutinised with care and the court needs to be satisfied that there is a genuine motivation for the move and not the intention to bring contact between the child and the other parent to an end.

(e) The effect upon the applicant parent and the new family of the child of a refusal of leave is very important.

(f) The effect upon the child of the denial of contact with the other parent and in some cases his family is very important.

(g) The opportunity for continuing contact between the child and the parent left behind may be very significant.

Importantly (and as is sometimes overlooked) Dame Butler-Sloss went on:

“All the above observations have been made on the premise that the question of residence is not a live issue. If, however, there is a real dispute as to which parent should be granted a residence order, and the decision as to which parent is the more suitable is finely balanced, the future plans of each parent for the child are clearly relevant. If one parent intends to set up home in another country and remove the child from school, surroundings and the other parent and his family, it may in some cases be an important factor to weigh in the balance. But in a case where the decision as to residence is clear as the judge in this case clearly thought it was, the plans for removal from the jurisdiction would not be likely to be significant in the decision over residence. The mother in this case already had a residence order and the judge`s decision on residence was not an issue before this Court.”

Re D (Children) (2006): In this case, the Court of Appeal emphasized that when a parent's application for permission to relocate with the child is refused, it should not be automatically assumed that the child will stay with the left-behind parent.

Re F (A Child) (2010): This case clarified the court's approach in relocation cases, emphasizing that the focus should be on the child's welfare and that no presumption should be made in favor of or against relocation.

Re C (Internal Relocation) (2015): This case dealt with internal relocation within the UK. It confirmed that the same principles applied to international relocation cases should also be used in internal relocation disputes.

Re H (Children) (2017): In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering the child's best interests and welfare when making decisions in child relocation cases.