Two fathers speak about their experience of leave to remove and the emotional impact of defending against these applications. Catherine Thomas of Vardags solicitors is also interviewed, giving her insight into matters which affect these cases, and the thorny issue of Skype as a substitute for physical contact.
Case Reference: Re R (A Child: Relocation)  EWHC 456 (Fam)
Reposted as we’d originally given a reference of C and B (A Child: Relocation)  EWHC 456 (Fam) and it’s commonly being referred to now as Re R. The neutral citation remains unchanged. Worth reminding yourself of the case, as it still isn’t commonly known, but is very pertinent to leave to remove cases and addressing arguments that Skype contact is a sufficient substitute to face-to-face care.
The mother sought leave to remove to enable her to relocate the child to Hong Kong to take up employment there. This case made headlines (in the Daily Mail) for the observation that Skype was no panacea to a lack of physical contact. The judge observed: Continue reading New case law – You Can’t Hug Skype
Our first new content for 2015 and updates to earlier content have just been published. Continue reading Guide and Case Law Updates – Leave to Remove