The Family Court has refused a mother’s application for permission to return to St Lucia with her six-year-old son, ruling that his welfare would be best served by his remaining in England.
The boy’s parents were originally from St Lucia and had married in 2019. The boy was born in London, where his parents had bought a property, and he spent the first years of his life living in England. In 2023 the family moved to St Lucia, where the boy attended school and had contact with relatives of both parents. However, they returned to England the following year. The parents’ relationship broke down, and the mother applied for permission to relocate permanently with the boy to St Lucia.
The Court heard evidence from a CAFCASS officer that the boy had important connections with St Lucia, spoke warmly about his experiences there and described it as his favourite home. She accepted that maintaining connections with St Lucia and his wider family there would be beneficial for him. However, he was well integrated into his school in England. He was making good academic progress, had formed friendships and took part in a range of extracurricular activities. The CAFCASS officer was concerned about the impact that relocating would have on his relationship with his father and considered that a move would inevitably result in a substantial reduction in the father’s day-to-day role. Drawing all matters together, she concluded that whilst he had valuable links to St Lucia, his welfare was presently best served by remaining in England.
The Court accepted that relocation would bring genuine benefits for the boy, particularly through his connection with his wider family, the opportunity for greater immersion in his cultural heritage and the improvement in his mother’s wellbeing that she believed would follow from returning there. However, those advantages were outweighed by a number of countervailing factors. The Court had a number of concerns, including the impact that relocation would have on the boy’s relationship with his father, the risks arising from St Lucia being a non-Hague Convention jurisdiction, the boy’s present stability and settled circumstances in England and, perhaps most importantly, his need at this stage of his life for continuity, predictability and a period of stability following a childhood already marked by considerable change.
Refusing the application, the Court was satisfied that it was in the boy’s best interests that he continue to live with his father in England. He was settled in his father’s care and in his education and friendships. His day-to-day needs were being met. The Court ordered that his mother could not remove him from England and Wales without the written consent of his father or a further order of the Court until he reached the age of 10.
