The Court of Appeal published its judgment today in what is the culmination of successive private law proceedings over 3 years in which Barry McAlinden acted for the mother via public access.
Previous hearings have dealt with allegations of domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour and physical chastisement and emotional harm to the children.
The court dismissed the father’s appeal against a decision of Leslie Samuels KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, and upheld the judge’s order allowing Barry’s client to relocate with the parties’ 2 children to a non-Hague convention country.
Barry prepared the skeleton argument and submissions for the mother to represent herself at the Court of Appeal hearing.
The Court of Appeal referred to Barry’s arguments on behalf of the mother [paragraphs 72-78 of the judgment] and did not call upon the mother to amplify those arguments.
Background to the proceedings
Barry has acted for the mother in all previous hearings over the last 3 years.
He helped his client secure:
- a judgment which concluded prior proceedings where the court considered the extent of, and effect of the father’s privilege against self-incrimination (Re O (Privilege against self-incrimination) 2 FCR 231) related to ongoing criminal proceedings against him
- a successful appeal against a case management order within the current proceedings
- findings of physical violence and coercive and controlling behaviour against the father in past proceedings, and
- findings of ongoing coercive and controlling behaviour via criminal proceedings brought by the wider paternal family and supported by the father against the mother in another jurisdiction, and physical chastisement and emotional harm to the children in these proceedings.
Significance of the judgment in Re O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation) [2025] EWCA Civ 888
This is the 1st case in the Court of Appeal to consider the interplay of Practice Direction 12J and relocation.
The judgment sets out:
- important guidance by way of questions the court should consider where domestic abuse is a feature of the past and/or ongoing family dynamics in the context of relocation (ie where PD12J is engaged) [para 94], and,
- clarification that a separate proportionality “evaluation” or “cross-check” is unnecessary in such cases, as it “will naturally and instinctively occur when the judge performs the essential balancing exercise within the wider welfare review.” [para 97]
Additionally, in contrast to Re B [2015] EWCA Civ 1302, Barry’s client had not proposed any form of security to ensure compliance with the terms of prospective child arrangements post-relocation.
Barry has been assisted throughout the case by Eleanor Curtis, a non-practising solicitor who assists clients in preparing for family law cases.
Read the judgment in full in Re O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation) [2025] EWCA Civ 888