Mother loses appeal against order she cannot take her child to Cyprus

SuitcasesA mother who claimed to be “petrified” of her former partner has lost her appeal against an order forbidding her from taking her child to Cyprus.

The parents of the two year old boy had separated and the mother had won a ‘non-molestation order’ prohibiting him from threatening behaviour, as a number of serious allegations has been made about his behaviour, including drug addiction, domestic violence and giving a ‘noxious substance’ to the child.

However, the woman failed to attend to attend family court hearings , saying she was ‘petrified’ of her former partner. In her absence, the father was also granted a ‘prohibited steps’ order, which prevents parents involved in a custody dispute from taking certain actions in relation to a child.

The mother, who has family in Cyprus, appealed against the order.

Sitting at the Court of Appeal earlier this month, Lord Justices Sullivan and Ryder and Lady Justice Black said the original judge had been right consider the risk of the child’s removal from the country and the order had been proportionate in the circumstances.

Photo by Salihan Laugesen via Flickr under a Creative Commons licence

 

Marilyn Stowe

The senior partner at Stowe Family Law, Marilyn Stowe is one of Britain’s best known divorce lawyers with clients throughout the country, in Europe, the Far East and the USA.

View more from this author

5 comments

Luke - July 10, 2013 at 7:35pm

Looks like a very easy case, there seems no good reason to strip the child of access to their father.

Paul - July 10, 2013 at 10:34pm

I don’t think you are aware of the Payne principles. UK case law allows the mother to do just that – abscond abroad and effectively shut the father out forever. Relocation law is an utter disgrace, made by English judges solely for the benefit of separated mothers who want to distance themselves entirely from the father along with the child. They are allowed to abscond abroad to do this on the legally established principle that the primary carer’s happiness and state of mind takes priority over the father’s (and his child’s too for that matter.)

As I said, a total and utter disgrace.

Luke - July 13, 2013 at 8:58pm

Paul, my understanding was they were moving away from this sort of nonsense – is that not correct ?

I think the problem is that all these decisions are made by individual Judges – and they are not always very inconsistent .

Luke - July 13, 2013 at 9:35pm

Last word should have been ‘consistent’ NOT ‘inconsistent’ – whoops.

Paul - July 13, 2013 at 11:12pm

No, Luke. There is a strong body of case law which underpins the Payne guidelines. When I say family law needs a good old clear out, I mean all the pseudo-science case law that judges have come up with to justify the bias and discrimination that has built up against fathers over the past twenty years since the Children Act came into being. The Payne guidelines must be abolished by act of parliament. Just like an act of parliament abolished the status of a father as the natural guardian of his children. Judges cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Look at their track record and make your own mind up.

Leave a comment