Peel J reheard child arrangements and relocation issues for two children with different fathers in [2026] EWFC 284, after the Court of Appeal sent the case back; the judgment is dated 21 September 2026.
Key facts
- Who: The mother (M), the fathers of S and C (F1 and F2), and the two children, whose arrangements and possible move to State A the court considered
- From: Judgment of 21 September 2026
- Source: S-O (Relocation), Re [2026] EWFC 284
In S-O (Relocation), Re [2026] EWFC 284, Mr Justice Peel heard the case in the Family Court at the Royal Courts of Justice on 15, 16, 17 and 21 September 2026. The judgment was delivered in private and published on condition that the family's anonymity is strictly preserved.
Background
The case concerns S, aged 14½, whose father is F1, and C, aged 7, whose father is F2. Their mother, M, is based in "State A" for work and is committed to staying there for the foreseeable future. The court noted there was no realistic option of the children living with her in London.
M was posted abroad for work from December 2023, and the children stayed in London. In 2025 she was told she would be based in State A for an expected two to five years. M and F2 agreed the children would move to live with her, assuming F1 agreed for S. F1 did not agree. M and F2 separated in June 2025, and F2 then withdrew his support for relocation.
A Deputy High Court Judge dismissed M's relocation application for C after a four-day hearing and made a Prohibited Steps Order preventing S from travelling to stay with M in State A. M appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed her appeal on 30 July 2026 and sent the matters back for rehearing, except that it overturned the Prohibited Steps Order without referring that aspect back.
The questions for the court
- Whether C should move to State A with M, or stay in England with F2.
- How much time C should spend with the parent she does not live with.
- If C moves, how to keep her link with S.
- For S, who is agreed to stay in England with F1, what safeguards, if any, are needed for contact with M in State A.
Evidence and procedure
M made allegations of domestic abuse against F2, set out in a Scott Schedule. F2 put in his own schedule of allegations against M shortly before the trial. The judge allowed it because most of it was already in his written evidence and M did not object.
The judge was satisfied that F2 instigated an anonymous police report that the children were being neglected by M. He was also satisfied that F2 made an anonymous report that M's passport was lost, to try to prevent her leaving State A.
Both fathers represented themselves. A Qualified Legal Representative ordered to cross-examine M for F2 did not attend because of an administrative oversight. F2 had prepared a list of over 100 questions, which the judge put to M. The bundle exceeded 1,600 pages and included no fewer than 21 statements.
Both fathers raised concerns that English court orders could not be enforced in State A because it is not a party to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. The independent social worker recommended that S stay in England and that C move with M. M accepted that S should live with F1 and continued her relocation application only for C.
What this means for parents
The judgment shows the questions a court weighs in a relocation dispute: where each child will live, how much time they spend with the other parent, how siblings stay in touch, and what concerns exist about enforcing orders abroad.
Sources
- S-O (Relocation), Re [2026] EWFC 284, Family Court, 21 September 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/284