Relocating after divorce,also known as Leave to remove (LTR), can be a difficult and complex field to navigate. We have many years experience in this area and can help guide you through, from the initial stages, right through to completion of your situation – whichever side of the case you are on.
Here at Gregorian Emerson Family Law Solicitors, we are Guildford’s pre-eminent Leave to remove London lawyers. We have both personal as well as professional experience in this delicate area and are well versed in any queries or questions you may have.
As one of the leading lawyers in the field of leave to remove London cases, we are perfectly placed to help you with your case.
If you are a separated parent facing a leave to remove London or child relocation case, then there really is no-one else you should choose to entrust with your families future.
If you are currently going through a leave to remove London/child relocation case and are looking for the very best in expert legal counsel to represent you, then look no further. With many years of both personal and professional experience in this field, we really are best placed to help both you and you family with your unique circumstance.
If your relationship has irretrievably broken down and you are seeking prefessional advice from an experienced leave to remove lawyers, then look no further. With many years of both personal and professional experience Gregorian Emerson Family Law Solicitors are best placed to help you with all your child relocation queries.
An article by Richard Gregorian, principal of Gregorian Emerson Family Law Solicitors (www.gelaw.co.uk) and Gavin Emerson, Brief Strategic Therapist.
A commercial litigator presents a highly personal view of some perceived procedural and evidential flaws in leave to remove / international relocation cases, borne out by his own experiences in successfully defending an application through the family courts.
Four sisters caught up in an international custody dispute have been allowed to remain with their mother in Australia for a further month after a Family Court judge agreed to another hearing, reports the Brisbane Times.
Despite the well-intentioned and very significant efforts invested by those involved in resolving private law children disputes within the family justice system (including international relocation or "leave to remove cases"), I do not believe that the critics of the system – mainly those parents unfortunate enough to be involved in it – are wholly unjustified in certain very important aspects of their criticism.
My client posted a blog regarding her experiences with Leave to Remove and the court process. The following is the post:
This case is another illustration of the fact that if judges have concerns about granting permission for relocation-in this case on the grounds of the applicant mother's negative feelings towards the father then it will balance out the maternal distress argument in order to allow the unique features of that case. This case was a permission to appeal case which meant that the applicant mother did not even get off the blocks in seeking to reverse the trial judges refusal to permit the child concerned to relocate in order that she could live with her English born husband who had lived in Australia for 23 years.
Following a recent intensity in the number of leave to remove cases, the case of R & another v A was decided by Sir Nicholas Wall, The President of the Family Division.
This case is important important for a number of reasons.
This was a full appeal hearing by a father who had been unsuccessful in opposing the applicant mother's relocation application to Australia. This case is important because it looks at the effect of whether due process evidentially had been respected. There had been no CAFCASS report and the father alleged the mothers mental health had not been so serious as to persuade him from making an application to remove the child from mother’s care.
This is often quoted as the case which confirms judicial unhappiness with the current Payne V Payne discipline in deciding leave to remove cases.
Showing how unique the circumstances can be in these types of cases, the leave to remove application was by the father in this instance and related to 2 children aged 16 ½ and 12. At 1st instance, the father was granted permission to relocate with the children even though mother had residence and was the primary carer and he only had the stereotypical alternate weekend and one day midweek contact. Both children expressed a wish to relocate to Canada with their father. Indeed after the permission was granted the eldest left so the application was essentially whether the youngest should also be allowed to relocate. That depended upon an assessment of the youngest child's needs quite separate from the understandable driver of keeping both siblings together. On that basis it was held that the child the subject of the appeal (“C”) should remain in England.
Richard Gregorian and Gavin Emerson of Gregorian Emerson Family Law Solicitors argue that the focus in defending leav to remove proceedings should be on ensuring due process.
In this two-part article Richard Gregorian and Gavin Emerson of Gregorian Emerson Family Law Solicitors explain the difficulties they perceive with the arguments relied on by critics of Payne v Payne and why the focus in defending these critically important proceedings should be on ensuring due process. The second part of the article will appear next week.