What does the ground-breaking 'Leave to Remove' judgment in Re K do for the credibility of the President of the Family Division? Sir Nicholas Wall made clear his view only two months ago in Re W: that the guidance in Payne v Payne must be followed.The Court of Appeal has now conceded that, for situations in which there exists a ‘shared care arrangement’, 'Leave to Remove' should, all other matters being equal, not be granted. Why? Because it now finally accepts that children in those situations benefit greatly from such ‘shared parenting’ arrangements. This is similar to saying that, for situations in which children are eating a healthy diet and are exercising regularly, they should be permitted to continue to do so. Why? Because children in that situation benefit greatly from such a healthy regime. However, shouldn’t we be encouraging ALL children to eat healthily and to exercise regularly??? Wouldn’t ALL children benefit from this regime??? The answer, of course, is yes and yes! What the judiciary still REFUSES to concede is that ALL children should be allowed to benefit from a ‘shared care arrangement’ (of course, where it is safe for them to do so). In other words, they continue to refuse to support a legal rebuttable presumption of Shared Parenting. In light of the judgment in Re K, the obvious question for our President is... Does he now believe that ALL children should be permitted to benefit from a ‘shared care arrangement’?I wonder if Sir Nicholas Wall will be willing to answer such a straight-forward question? Mr BD (litigant-in-person father in Re D  Civ 50)
I doth my cap to you, John. I was not at all expecting that my post would make it through your filter. Let us see whether a) others within the legal blogging fraternity are as willing to be so bold, and b) whether the President actually responds to the question. RegardsMr BD
The fact that Leave to Remove has been granted with such terrific ease over the past several decades will reflect very poorly on Britain in the very near future, and I suspect certain members of the judiciary will have child abuse to answer for. But then, institutionalized child abuse is what Britain has always seemed to excel so well in.
Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or* They breach court reporting rules; or* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).Please also note that I am unable to give advice.