Child Relocation Dispute: Engage Honestly or Pay Up

Serena Sandhu

Engage honestly or carry the cost – lesson from a failed child relocation challenge

A recent Family Court judgment underscores a vital lesson for separated parents involved in child relocation disputes. How a case is conducted can be just as important as the merits of the case itself.

In the case of A Mother v a Father (Internal relocation and costs) [2025] EWFC 274 (B), a separated couple came before the Family Court with a single issue to be determined by the Court, i.e. should the mother be permitted to relocate from Buckinghamshire to Northumberland with the parties’ child, or should she be required to stay near the father’s home to promote a close relationship between the father and the child.

However, what started as a simple welfare-focused dispute, quickly unravelled when the court uncovered serious tactical game-playing by the father.

What happened?

The parents had separated in December 2024, and the mother initially moved with the child to live with her maternal grandparents. The father remained in the family home with his three older children from a previous relationship.

The mother wanted to relocate approximately 300 miles to a new town in the north of England, about a five-hour drive from the father’s home. The maternal grandparents were also moving to the town. The mother was familiar with the area and believed that living close to the family would enable her stretched finances to better meet her son’s needs.

The father objected and applied for an urgent, ex-parte, without notice application, seeking a Prohibited Steps order to prohibit the move on the basis that the mother was “imminently planning to move with Q some 309 miles away… if notice is given to the respondent she will relocate in advance of any hearing date.”

The father also claimed that he was exempt from attending a required mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM) on the grounds the child was at risk of being removed from the United Kingdom, which the court later found to be wholly untrue.

What did the court decide?

After a three-day hearing in July 2025, Judge Nott permitted the mother’s relocation as being in the best interests of the child. He was guided by several key points:

• The child’s young age. The child was almost two, and his primary attachment was to his mother.
• Mother’s genuine motivation. The judge accepted that the mother’s reasons for moving were genuine and child-focused, not designed to exclude the father.
• Current contact arrangements could continue. The child’s current contact schedule, overnights with the father every other Saturday, could still be maintained despite the distance.
• Mother had a detailed co-parenting plan. The mother has set out a coherent plan for the child to spend time with his father and half-brothers, as well as his housing, nursery and childcare arrangements in the new location. The father proposed no such plan, “seemingly preferring to leave those details to the Mother.” The Judge commended the mother’s plan for “its comprehensiveness and its care.”
• Father’s conduct and attitude. The judge strongly criticised the father’s insistence on urgency, finding there was never a real risk of the mother relocating early. The application was seen as a “pre-emptive strike to try to gain litigation advantage… not a child-focused way of starting proceedings concerning his son’s welfare.” The father’s animosity towards the mother was palpable throughout his evidence. The judge concluded it would be unrealistic for her to co-parent with him locally, without the benefit of family support.

Father hit with costs order

Cost orders are rare in family proceedings, and courts do not want to reduce the money available for the family. Generally, a party will only be ordered to pay costs in a child relocation case if their conduct has been unreasonable or reprehensible. That could include refusing to engage with mediation when it was reasonable to do so or making false allegations that are later disproven by the court.

In this case, the court found a clear pattern of dishonest engagement by the father. He falsely asserted that his child was at imminent risk of being taken out of the country, which resulted in an urgent hearing with significant costs implications. He repeatedly refused to cooperate with the mother, then called her “controlling.” Mediation would have pointed out the weakness of the father’s position, but he refused to engage.

Even in the final hearing, the father failed to file any reasonable parenting plan; rather his evidence focused on “attacking and maligning” the mother.

For all of these reasons, the father was ordered to pay full costs of the hearings, including the full costs of the urgent hearing in April 2025, summarily assessed as £6,768 plus VAT, plus half of the mother’s costs in the final hearing, summarily assessed at £23,275 plus VAT, a total of £30,000 plus vat, approximately.

Key lessons for parents – be reasonable, flexible and open to compromise

There’s no doubt the father had a reasonable and principled objection to relocation, but he did not conduct the litigation in a reasonable or principled manner, and that weakened his argument.

The court prioritises honest, child-centred conduct above all. Parents who use litigation as a weapon, or who disregard truth and cooperation, risk losing both credibility and their case, along with bearing the significant financial consequences.

How Osbornes can help

It is extremely important when considering an internal relocation to get advice at an early stage, to ensure that any such application has the best prospects of success. If you need advice on seeking or defending a court application that involves the relocation of a child within the UK, or you are affected by any other issue in this article, then Osbornes special family team can assist.

Please contact our experienced team of family law solicitors by:

• Filling in our online enquiry form; or
• Calling us on 020 7485 8811.