BCD (Internal Relocation), Re [2026] EWFC 168 (B)

This judgment was given in private. The judge gives permission for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of this judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.

DISTRICT JUDGE COCKAYNE (SITTING IN PRIVATE)

Re BCD (Internal Relocation)

[2026] EWFC 168 (B)

Date 22 nd June 2026

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT WOLVERHAMPTON

Before: District Judge Cockayne

Between

The MotherApplicant

- and –

Between

The FatherRespondent

Miss Callaway (instructed by instructed by Ms. Dhami of Chase Morgan Solicitors) for Mother

The Father was unrepresented and acting in person for in person

Hearing Hearing date: 16 th June 2026

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down at 3pm on 29 th June 2026 by circulation to the parties

or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives

INTRODUCTION

[1]This is a written Judgment given following the conclusion of a final hearing which took place before me on 16 June 2026. This hearing has taken place over 1 day. The hearing was conducted as an entirely attended hearing.

PARTIES AND THE APPLICATIONS

[2]The children are B, age 14 years; C, age 9 years; and D, age 3 years. They have an older now adult sibling, A, age 18 years. They live with their mother, Miss M, and she applies for a Specific Issue Order to relocate to City Z for a “fresh start”. She was represented at this final hearing by counsel Miss Callaway. The father, Mr F, represents himself, but was assisted by a court appointed QLR, Mr Nwadika, undertaking cross examination of Miss M and the Social Worker on his instructions on behalf of the Court. Mr F opposes the proposed relocation, citing concerns for the impact on the children’s welfare and reduction in their contact with him.

[3]I heard oral evidence from the Section 7 report author Social Worker, Miss SW; Miss M; and Mr F. In addition, each parent has made a number of statements which I have read. I have also considered the bundle entire including Probation Risk Assessments of Miss M’s partner and Section 7 reports and addendums. If I do not mention something written or said orally it does not mean I have not taken it into account. As there were no factual matters that I needed to determine before considering welfare, I do not intend to set out the parties’ evidence at any length or separately to my welfare analysis.

[4]I wish at the outset to express my gratitude to Miss M and Mr F who have given me their oral evidence. I recognise it cannot have been easy for either of them given what is at stake and I thank them for the clear way in which they presented their cases.

BACKGROUND HISTORY

[5]Following the parties separation in September 2022, the children lived with their mother and had supervised contact at the paternal grandmother's home with their father for 5 hours weekly on Thursdays. The need for supervision came at Miss M’s behest, the separation not being amicable and parties having mutual distrust issues with each other. Mr F went on shortly after to have a home with his partner, Miss G, which he now shares with their own 3 children (I, age 3; J, age 18 months; and K, age 2 months) and her child from a previous relationship (H, age 6).

[6]Miss M met her current partner, Mr P, in or around 2024. She applied for a child arrangements order on the 5 September 2024 so that the children would have secure living arrangements with her and as she was concerned that Mr F was harassing her for additional and unsupervised contact via the children. On 9 February 2025 Mr F cross applied making his own child arrangements order application for unsupervised contact.

[7]Mr P had been convicted of the murder of his ex-partner's father in 2007 and was then serving the end of a life sentence with a 17 year tariff. He was later released on the 10 March 2025. At an urgent hearing on 8 February 2025, Mr F's oral application for a Prohibited Steps Order preventing the children from having any contact with Mr P was granted. At a return date on 20 February 2025 a further order was made preventing Miss M’s relocation until further order. In the 15 months of proceedings that have followed before this final hearing, the court has directed a Section 7 report filed late on 13 September 2025 and two further reports directed in order to clarify the local authority recommendations, one dated 27 November 2025 and most recently 21 April 2026, directed by way of update following further probation risk assessment of Mr P. Those delays in achieving final outcomes for the children have caused uncertainty and anxiety to all involved in the proceedings, including foremost the children.

ISSUES

[8]I am grateful to the parties for confirming that they agree that the time the children are to be with their father will include holidays, special occasions and half a day on Christmas Day. The remaining issues are the most difficult and require welfare determinations by the court as follows: a) Whether relocation to City Z with their mother is in the best interests of the children? b) What should the child arrangements be in terms of the children spending time with their father? c) Whether, and if so when and how, contact should progress with Mr P?

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

[9]Miss M defends her proposal to relocate, asserting that such a move is not selfish or impulsive but rather in order so that she and her children can have a fresh start away from ongoing local tensions and family conflict. She proposes that if she moves contact can take place in City Y fortnightly Friday evening through to Sunday with overnights being spent at the home of the maternal grandparents and day times spent with Mr F. During the hearing she agreed with the proposal by Mr F that in order to reduce concerns about overcrowding within his home that were his partner and his other children to stay overnight elsewhere then B, C and D could spend the night with him during those weekends.

[10]Mr F very much opposes Miss M’s relocation plan. He expressed his understandable concern that such a move is a considerable distance away and that he cannot get to the children quickly if he is needed. He seeks overnight stays and phone contact on the days he does not see the children and additional time over holidays and special occasions. In response to the suggestion in cross examination that contact would not really reduce in terms of quantum and that indirect contact can take place in the week to make up for lost frequency, he pointed out that since separation and during these lengthy proceedings indirect contact has not regularly taken place. Though conceding B is 14 and has her own phone, C and D require support to contact him which is not provided by Miss M. In addition, he asked why does Miss M now says she supports overnight stays when this could have taken place long before? He has no confidence that the contact situation will improve upon Miss M moving out of the area, saying: “if you can't do it here you aren't going to do it there, are you?”.

[11]The allocated social worker, Miss SW, authored the most recent Section 7 report dated 20 April 2026. She does not support the application to relocate, the reasons for which she summarised in her oral evidence as follows: i) due to the lack of any significant time the children have spent with Mr P; ii) the risk surrounding a sudden move to an unfamiliar area with an unfamiliar adult without familiar support; iii) concerns regarding B's mental health with which she has struggled in the past and if she were to move her needing to access a further waiting list in order to access the same level of mental health support she is currently receiving in City Y. Though Miss SW acknowledged there had been previous adult conflict between Miss M and Mr F from which she wanted to distance herself, in discussions with her Miss M’s focus had consistently been on positive information regarding new experiences and opportunities but very little acknowledgment on the impact of the children’s relationship with Mr F. There had not been a lot of conversation about what their relationship would look like, how it would be structured and how the impact would be alleviated. In essence, she did not recommend that relocation would be in the children's best interests when one considers their overall welfare.

RELEVANT LAW

[12]In deciding any child arrangements and proposed relocation, the Children Act 1989 provides that the children’s welfare is paramount and the court should take into account the matters set out in the welfare checklist at Section 1(3). Delay in reaching final determinations is detrimental to welfare, and, noting the length of these proceedings, it would be detrimental to the children were I to adjourn for a Final Hearing for any fort any further risk assessment or review. I also have in the forefront of my mind Art 8 and the principle of proportionality and the parties Art 6 rights.

[13]Thecase of Payne v Payne

[2001] EWCA Civ 166

is still considered helpful guidance in relocation cases. In summary: a) Is the mother’s application genuine, realistic, and founded on practical proposals? b) Is the father’s opposition motivated by genuine concern for the future of the child’s welfare or is it driven by some ulterior motive? What would be the extent of the determent to him and his future relationship with the child or the application granted? c) What would be the impact on the mother of a refusal of her realistic proposal?

[14]Subsequent to Payne, Re C (Internal Relocation)

[2015] EWCA Civ 1305

clarified that there should be no differentiation in the basic approach between internal and external relocation cases and ruled out the need for the ‘exceptional circumstances’ to restrict movement.

[15]There are several reasons why internal relocation might be desired. These might be categorised into those which benefit the child solely (such as to access specific educational facilities for the child), those which will benefit the child through opportunities offered to the parent (such as employment opportunities for the parent which would result in a better quality of life for the child), and a hybrid of both (such as moving closer extended family which might include support for the child which would not be afforded otherwise). If the opportunity is focused around the parent, then it will be important to demonstrate clearly how that would benefit the child in the long-term compared with remaining where they currently are given that welfare remains the focus of decision making. WELFARE ANALYSIS Wishes and feelings

WELFARE ANALYSIS

[16]All the children have spoken to their social workers over the course of the preparation of the 3 welfare reports. A was able to engage openly and thoughtfully, focusing on the impact of the move on her siblings, suggesting a strong protective instinct towards them. When speaking about moving to City Z, both B and C have expressed the move as a “fresh start”. In his oral evidence Mr F expressed concern that both B and C had used this same phrase as Miss M in speaking about the proposed relocation as a “fresh start”. Miss SW told me that although the children had spoken positively, they had geared their optimism on hypothetical situations rather than the realities of the move, for example, both spoke positively about the idea of living closer to the beach and parks, explaining this would allow the family to spend more time together doing activities such as playing on the sand or going to the seaside.

[17]However, mixed with that optimism B stresses that she has a good group of friends and she is naturally anxious about moving and having to make new connections; C worries she will miss her cousins (siblings); and D of course is too young to express his wishes and feelings but no doubt shares those reasonable conflicted feelings of his sisters. Although no longer a subject child in these proceedings as she turned 18 in April 2026, A is protective of her siblings. She has a noted difficulty with her father in recalling him leaving and having a new family.

Needs

[18]At age 14, B is described as struggling with her mental health, about which she spoke openly to her social worker in their 1:1 session. Her well-being is of critical concern as in March 2026 worrying she took a knife into school, she says as it was left over after carrying out a toy repair, however, Miss M is aware there have been other mentions of attempted self-harm. She reported experiencing anxiety and depression and confirmed that she is currently on the waiting list for CAMHS. B linked some of her emotional difficulties to family pressures, particularly feeling caught in the middle between different family members. She has since that session had access to support by local resource Base 25 where she had several sessions with a psychologist until recently ending that intervention a few days ago. B appears from the papers to be naturally insecure, as many teenagers of her are, but struggling more than most and she finds comfort and security in good relationships with her families, both maternal and paternal, here in City Y.

[19]C is not described as having any needs additional to those of an average 9 year old. She described in her social worker 1:1 session her relationship with her father as close and affectionate. She stated that she enjoys playing with him and having cuddles, particularly when she is feeling upset.

[20]Observations of D indicate that he is able to feel safe, regulated, and settled within a familiar setting when supported by trusted adults and given time to engage at his own pace. His responses during play suggest an ability to form relationships with adults and demonstrate growing confidence once rapport is established. His behaviour includes what is described by Miss M as handshaking, which may be attributable to neurodivergence but there is no current diagnosis and of course at the age of 3 that is a presentation that may change and will need to be considered when he's a little older. He is however vulnerable, dependant on his primary carer, and highly sensitive to his mother’s feelings. He needs to feel secure and safe.

[21]Arguably, there is also a need for all 3 children her to have a greater appreciation as to their identity and paternity, the children, it is asserted by Mr F, having started to identify the mother’s partner, Mr P, as “Daddy”.

Ability to meet needs

[22]There are no significant safeguarding welfare concerns regarding Miss M’s ability to meet the holistic needs of the children, however the reporting social worker has opined that her ability to meet their needs would be strengthened by consistent and transparent communication with their father, for example, regarding B taking a knife into school and her access to counselling support from Base 25 were not reported to Mr F by her.

[23]At the outset the Mr F was said by Miss M to have issues with substance misuse poor mental health and emotional dysregulation Mr F accepted those issues and that openness demonstrates insight which is itself a protective factor. No concerns have been raised about his contact with the children since it became unsupervised last year. Further in respect of Mr F there are concerns regarding overcrowding at his home. It is a 2-bedroom flat that he shares with his partner and 4 children all under the age of 6 years. To include the further 3 children subject to these proceedings into that arrangement obviously means his family would benefit from additional space and the physical constraints of the property limit his capacity for regular contact including overnights with all the children together. The social work evidence is that he has demonstrated emotional warmth protectiveness and a strong desire to maintain close relationships with the children but that that ability is impacted by housing limitations, ongoing parental conflict and his own mental health vulnerabilities.

Harm

[24]The children had been impacted by stresses and disputes within their parents' lives, evidenced by direct work undertaken with them by Social Workers over the course of these proceedings. Those recollections and linked emotions lend themselves to expressing a desire for a “fresh start.”

[25]In addition to that ongoing risk of the impact of parental conflict harming the children emotionally were I to maintain the status quo is the risk from what was the focus of the Prohibited Steps Orders preventing Miss M relocating or bringing the children into unsupervised contact with Mr P. Mr P’s conviction for murder in December 2007 led to him being prevented on release from having contact with persons under the age of 18 as a licence condition. There was a history of domestic abuse in his previous relationship, and the offence was connected with that intimate relationship. At the time of offending heavy drinking was also problematic for him. Following his release from prison in March 2025, a probation report dated 15 October 2025 assessed that he remained a high risk of harm within the community and to the public and as medium risk of serious harm to known adults and children. The report stated that should Mr P struggle to manage his emotional well-being or deal with challenging conflict the imminence of risk may increase. It noted, however, that through his engagement with support during his incarceration there were no existing issues with alcohol or drugs and for 2 years he had presented with stable mental health. Following delays in receiving Section 7 reports and court listings, opportunity permitted time for an addendum risk assessment from probation and this was filed on the 27 March 2026, Mr P being subject to biannual risk assessment reviews. That probation report noted that Mr P's engagement with supervision sessions had been excellent, he had had an electronic tag for six months after his release regarding his alcohol prohibition of which there had been no breaches, and all drug screenings had been negative. The Probation Officer for Mr P, reports, as recorded in the April 2026 Section 7 report, that:

“Mr P is currently living with his mother in City Z, has stable and secure personal circumstances, and is in full-time employment as a warehouse operative... there are no current concerns identified in relation to substance misuse, mental health, or Mr P’s emotional wellbeing, and that he is engaging appropriately with Probation services and complying with the conditions of his licence. Ms Blythe clarified that notwithstanding his stable circumstances, Mr P continues to be assessed as presenting a medium risk to children, specifically in relation to the potential for children to experience emotional harm if exposed to domestic abuse towards a partner or family member....this risk factor remains central to Probation’s assessment and monitoring of Mr P and continues to inform professional decision-making regarding safeguarding considerations.”

[26]The risk of harm to known adults and children was specifically emotional harm to children were they to be exposed to domestic abuse following his release. Miss M had introduced the children via indirect contact to Mr P by way of supervised video calls. The children described him to Miss SW positively and she has raised no concerns regarding the indirect contact or Miss M’s more supervision of that contact. At the hearing on 23 April 2026 in which I listed this final hearing, I agreed to the suggestion that given the length of positive indirect contact with Mr P and his engagement with services which had led to a reduction in risk that contact could at that stage progress to direct face to face contact as long as it was supervised and in the community for a time limited session. That has taken place and I understand that those contacts have also progressed positively.

[27]However, Mr F tells me that when speaking to the children they are reluctant to talk about Mr P and have expressed that their mother has said they are not allowed to speak about him, suggesting Miss M is anxious of anything they may say being used against her and her proposed relocation. Mr F was also concerned regarding the children staying in the same house as Mr P. Although Miss M advances that she will not do so, he was realistically concerned that financially that may become a necessity when a risk remains.

[28]There is of course a risk of harm therefore arising were Miss M to relocate with the children. The lack of support from existing family were they to move and financial uncertainty and constraints may lead to not only the fracturing of close relationships the children share with the paternal family in City Y but Miss M to rely on Mr P to an inappropriate extent and over and above that which she says she is prepared to undertake today. Were Miss M to separate from Mr P even temporarily, she will be very much isolated in City Z.

[29]There is a significant risk of harm in particular to B. The Section 7 reports from November 2025 and April 2026 both highlight that the significant emotional risk of harm increases if any changes for B or not managed with an eye on her mental health and that her emotional well-being does not support a move to City Z at least at the present time.

Change in Circumstances

[30]Miss M suggests the mental health of herself and her children will be improved by having greater emotional space. She also highlights access to suitable schools and opportunities in City Z and that she has support from a network there, mainly from Mr P and his family and friends, but also from a friend who she tells me lives about 20 minutes away from City Z. Regarding the impact on contact, she did not believe a move would make contact more difficult but she understood Mr F’s concerns.

[31]I have considered the impact of a refusal of relocation on Miss M. Miss M denied the main reason for the proposed move was to be with Mr P and stated that she had wanted to move there ever since separation and before meeting him. She went as far as saying that she had considered moving to City Z on her own to be Mr P however the children did not want to leave her and she is happy to have them. Mr F believes that she leaves the children with her parents 3 to 5 days a week so she can be with Mr P. Though Miss M refuted that, suggesting this took place fortnightly only, I am concerned the desire for a relationship with Mr P eclipses her views of the children’s interests, conceding in oral evidence that she wasn't sure the children wanted their current contact with Mr F to be interrupted which a relocation would produce .

[32]Mr F, supported by Miss SW, argues that a move can only be harmful at this stage. It would entail considerable emotional disruption to both their relationships as they know them and support network. The distance between City Y and the proposed area of relocation requires a 2 hour drive time. For the children in my view that is not too arduous but however Miss M does not drive having not passed her driving test yet as she had advanced earlier in the proceedings that she would do. Although Mr F drives, his car has recently been the subject of criminal damage. In any event he shares that car with his partner and no doubt that car is required to meet various demands of a family with 4 children.

[33]The prospect of contact successfully taking place is further diminished by the fact that both parents are on Universal Credit and do not work so finances are severely restricted. Regarding the expense of promoting contact, Miss M told me that with a travel card she had found the 1 ½ hour train journey to be £50 each way and proposed this be shared with Mr F. However, a quick Google search with the parties consent revealed that a return journey for herself, her adult daughter A, and the 3 children would be more in the region of £250 and with fortnightly contact that would be an expense of £500 a month. She then advanced that her parents could assist with transport in handovers but I have seen no evidence of that commitment. Neither parent therefore is in a financial or practical position to be responsible for the contact journeys or handovers without significant difficulty. Even were contact to be able to take place it would have to take place on a much reduced frequency than the present twice a week contact of 4-7 hours at a time. It is proposed it would reduce to fortnightly on 2 days. Miss M expressed that the children return from their current contact with their father happy and content.

[34]It came to me a surprise that the children have never even visited City Z nor do they know anyone there save for Miss M and now more recently Mr P. Miss M told me the reason for that was that she had understood the Prohibited Steps Order prevented her from taking the children to City Z. I do not accept any common sense interpretation of the Prohibited Steps Order dated February 2025 as leading to that conclusion. It is clear that the order says Miss M is not to allow the children to live anywhere other than their present address in City Y. She confirms she has supervised all Mr P’s indirect and direct contacts and that she has taken the children on residential holidays away from the area during these proceedings.

[35]Though she highlights the benefits of a move as a fresh start to a calmer environment near the beach, in my view she has significantly underestimated the impact such a move will have on her children, which is key. She states she is willing to undertake all the funding and travel for the purposes of promoting contact, having neither the funds nor having ever travelled on that journey with the children before. Further evidence of lack of forethought and planning came when Miss M conceded she had not yet obtained a property and was unclear whether it would be privately rented, and if not, of the contact she had had with Region Z council for a house to be provided by them. I share Miss SW’ concern that that the children have never spent time in the Region Z area and have not experienced real life there when there had been no barrier to them doing so.

[36]Regarding contact with Mr. F, he says that overnight contact is manageable on an occasional basis and in his evidence said his partner is willing to take their 4 children away for the night so that he can have B, C and D stay with him in the home. In her evidence Miss M agreed with that proposal. I remind myself that the wishes and feelings of the children expressed to Miss SW were that they did not want to stay overnight with their father, however, the suggestion was made in the belief that they would have sufficient space to do so. It has only really become clear during this hearing and they have not been asked about that specific prospect. Given that Miss M supports the proposal and such would lead to further quality time with their father, I am happy to direct that takes place whether or not I grant the relocation application.

Range of Orders

[37]The only realistic options are to grant an order permitting relocation or make an order preventing it. A child arrangements order is necessary and proportionate in order to secure certainty regarding the children’s contact arrangements with their father and paternal family. I accept that the children are settled with their mother. They have always lived with her and they want to reman living with her. Were Mr F's living arrangements more suitable, it could be possible for Miss M to move to City Z to be with Mr P and there to be reversal in the primary carer so that they could remain in City Y living with their father. In all the circumstances of this case, that is not a realistic option an in any event it is not advanced by either party.

[38]Miss SW was asked in cross examination about the previous Section 7 author’s recommendations in the Section 7 report dated November 2025 which noted that, following reassessment of risk of Mr P, a move could be considered. In response Miss SW explained that the children's relationship with Mr P is not the only consideration regarding a move to City Z.

[39]In cross examination, Miss SW further clarified that she was not saying there could be no relocation at anytime and was open to undertaking a reassessment following further wishes and feelings work after the children had had holiday time in City Z over the summer. The position of M was put to the social worker that she was willing to take the children up to City Z in the summer holidays and get them accustomed to the area before making a full move just prior to September 2026. Miss Callaway invites me to depart from the recommendation of the social worker and argues that there is good reason to do so, given, she argues, the only issue the social worker seemed to have in evidence with the move was that the children had not visited City Z before. Whether the children can be settled there can be investigated over the summer holidays, Miss SW being willing to reassess after the children have visited the area. That could however of course lead to yet another adjournment of this final hearing and delay reaching decisions that are long overdue.

[40]We are now in week 60 of proceedings. The children are aware that decisions about where they will be going to school and where they are going to live have taken time and a decision is to be made today. That Miss M has failed to consider reflecting on the move following a visit to the area with the children, has failed to visit any proposed schools, failed to complete or even arrange viewings of houses, and failed to look into all other practical matters that are key for these decisions to be made before now is solely down to her. She has had legal representation throughout so those omissions really cannot be excused. I refuse any suggestion this Final Hearing be adjourned for those enquiries to be made, as ongoing delay is not in the interests of the children.

CONCLUSION

[41]I hold a number of concerns about the proposed relocation: a) Firstly, were I to permit Miss M to move to City Z there will be reduction in the frequency of contact between the children and their father. That would really impact on their relationship not only with him but the paternal family as a whole. That extended family is very important to these children. They have four siblings living with their father with whom they share a loving bond, together with their paternal grandparents and a supportive paternal auntie. Currently they see this members of this family twice a week. To change that to twice a fortnight has an impact on all of them: D at age 3 years old and will feel those gaps in contact as painfully long; equally the reduction will upset B and C who have said they will miss their family. To promote contact is unaffordable. Even were the maternal grandparents to be able to facilitate journeys that would be a huge demand on them. In all the circumstances even were I to order fortnightly contact it is very likely such an arrangement would break down for practical reasons very quickly. b) Secondly, I am concerned about a lack of planning on the part of Miss M. There has been no visit by the children to City Z, despite no restriction on their so doing; no certainty regarding their proposed location and accommodation; nor any real explanation as to why Mr P cannot simply relocate to the City Y area. What is proposed is a huge change for her and her children. More thought and insight into the need for careful planning is required to persuade me it would be in the children’s best interests. c) Thirdly, I am concerned about the significant impact such at relocation would have on the children. In short it would be a huge gamble and risks considerable. There would be significant emotional disruption for B in particular, as she struggles with her mental health and has friends here who are supporting her but no one there. I am concerned that Miss M has presented to the children an unrealistically optimistic view of life in a seaside town, therefore, the ability of living happily far away from paternal family support and love is idealistic. d) Finally, there is the ongoing risk posed by Mr P by virtue of a continued assessment of him as a medium risk to the children. Miss M argues that she can give an undertaking that there would be no unsupervised contact upon which I can rely because there is no evidence of any breach of the current restriction in the same terms. However, located some distance away who would police that arrangement, and I also bear in mind the risk flows from the children being exposed to domestic abuse within her relationship with Mr P, which impedes any motivation by her to disclose any such issues.

[42]I have to weigh all those issues and arguments that run against a relocation against the positives and benefits. However, the only benefit of such a move is the prospect of a fresh start: away from parental tensions of the maternal and paternal family homes against a background of ongoing and historic parental conflict; and new beginnings with a new partner, reduction in stresses and a better environment for her and the children. Those reasons in my view does not outweigh all the risks of harm that will arise from the children's separation from their support networks and paternal family. This is not a move for employment reasons or any other well planned aim.

[43]For the reasons as I have set out above, I cannot contemplate an order for relocation meeting the children’s best interests. There are no realistic proposals made by Miss M in order to mitigate the impact of such a monumental change on the children.

[44]Balancing the risks of harm and impact on the children in particular and a holistic analysis of the welfare checklist I have come to the strong conclusion that I should refuse her application for a Specific Issue Order and make a Prohibited Steps Orders preventing her from allowing the children to live anywhere other than the City Y area. The child arrangements order that the children live with her remains with the section 11A contact condition that there is to be no unsupervised contact with Mr P nor in any non-public place.

[45]However, that is my welfare analysis at the present time. I cannot force Miss M to live in this or any area for any disproportionate period. Furthermore, whether or not such a move would be in the children’s welfare interests in a few years time following reduced assessed risk from Mr P, better planning and increased ages and maturity of the children is yet to be seen. I have in mind that in 2 to 3 years time B will have completed her GCSE's and C completed her primary education. If at that stage Miss M has firmer plans and an ongoing wish to relocate with a practical commitment to contact, then that decision can of course be reviewed in the future. The Prohibited Steps Order will therefore end in 3 years time. That is not a green light to Miss M to relocate at that point however. Without Mr F’s consent to a move, the consent of the court will ultimately be required. However, any repeat application of the present before 2 to 3 years is likely to be disruptive for the children and likely to fail. I will therefore record on the face of this order a section 91(14) warning that if any such application is made to revisit this specific issue prematurely then an order may be made on such an occasion barring any future applications to the court without first obtaining the court’s permission.

[46]Regarding Mr P’s involvement with the children, they currently spend up to 4 hours of contact supervised by Miss M in the community. I am happy to extend that to include the children visiting him in City Z with Miss M for similar short periods of time. There should be no overnight contact and all contact must be supervised and take place in the community. Unless and until there is further risk assessment by probation of Mr P that the level of risk has sufficiently reduced to low, then I would say to be anything other than supervised contact in public would not be in the children’s best interests.

[47]Finally regarding contact with Mr F, I endorse his solution to his overcrowding as proposed, by his partner taking the children in her care away for the night once a fortnight, perhaps utilising the home of the paternal grandparents, so that B, C and D can have overnight stays with their father at his house. Should the sleepovers take place whereby, for example, B and C stay at their father’s home with their H and J, with D staying overnight elsewhere with I and K, that would equally be an arrangement they would all likely enjoy and benefit from. The parents, and indeed the children, need to be flexible and pragmatic, bearing in mind the currently limited sleeping accommodation.

[48]Regarding the frequency of those overnight stays, the children need quality time at the weekend with both parents. Currently the arrangement is Wednesdays from 3pm until 8pm and Sundays 11am until 6pm weekly. I will change the pattern slightly so there is as least impact on the children as possible whereby

ORDERS

[49]I make a Child Arrangements Order that the children shall live their mother, with a section 11A contact condition that there is to be no unsupervised contact with Mr P nor in any non-public place.

[50]Providing that a future probation risk assessment of Mr P revises the level of risk posed by him to low, Miss M may wish to consider revisiting her application to relocate but argued on a firmer footing. Should such an application be made without a sufficient change in circumstances, a Section 91(14) order may be made on the next occasion.

[51]I vary the Prohibited Steps Order made within these proceedings preventing Miss M’s relocation away from City Y to have an end date of 29 June 2029.

[52]As a result, I dismiss the application by Miss M for a Specific Issue Order in respect of that relocation.

[53]I make conditional contact / spend time arrangements orders as follows, providing that Mr F can make alternative arrangements for the children who live with him to stay elsewhere fortnightly, contact will from the week commencing 29 June 2026 take place: a) Weekly on Wednesdays 3pm until 7pm (ending an hour earlier as the parents express 8pm is quite late for D at present); and b) On alternate weekends as follows, week 1 commencing on 3 July 2026: i. Week 1 Friday 3pm until Saturday 12pm; ii. Week 2 Saturday 11am until 6pm.

[54]For the avoidance of doubt, should Mr F fail to make alternative arrangements for the children who live with him to stay elsewhere, contact will remain as it is largely at present, namely weekly mid-week contact after school on Wednesdays to 7pm and weekly Saturday 12pm to 6pm.

[55]Additional contact as agreed between the parties to take place over the holidays and on special occasions including Christmas should be set out on the Order, which I invite Counsel for Miss M to draft.

[56]Furthermore, providing that Mr F in the future obtains more appropriate accommodation that removes the concerns regarding overcrowding, that contact may increase to include longer weekend and/or mid-week overnight stays, with holidays shared approximately equally. If he fails to obtain appropriate accommodation, contact will remain as above, with contact over holidays and special occasions as agreed. Given his aspiration for a larger property has been expressed throughout proceedings continuing now for over a year, it seems unrealistic that this will be attainable in the short term. My hope is that after the conclusion of these proceedings and a period away from court with cooperative co-parenting, that contact evolution may take place by consent between the parties.

[57]This is my Judgment. District Judge Cockayne 22 June 2026