Children - contact orders - enforcement - foreign judgments - schools - order that child attend specified school in UK - conditions fettering residence orders



Re G (a child): CA (Civ Div) (Lords Justice Ward, Richards): 5 October 2006



The mother (M) appealed against a contact order made in favour of the respondent father (F), and an order that the child of the family (C) attend a specified school where F taught.



F and M, who were residents of the UK, had separated while living in Australia. Both F and M wanted to return to the UK and various orders were made in the Australian courts, including orders that C should reside with M and have contact with F. The court further ordered that C, who was ten years old, should be educated at a specified school in the UK.



Following their return to the UK, F had made unsuccessful attempts to have contact with C, who refused to see him. On an application to the court to enforce the orders, the judge ordered that C reside with M and have contact with F in accordance with the orders made in Australia and for C to attend the school, which was approximately one hour from where M had been living at the time of the hearing. The judge held that if the school were too far from M, she would have to move to facilitate the order.

Since the making of the order, M had moved further away from the school to be near her family.



Held, the judge had erred in not sufficiently examining the basis on which the order relating to the school had been made, and not sufficiently analysing the deficiencies in the evidence before the Australian court.



The first task of the family jurisdiction in the UK was to decide with whom a child should live and to make a residence order. In normal circumstances, a residence order should not be fettered with conditions that a parent be confined to a particular locality. It was unrealistic to expect C to travel such a great distance to school, and the judge was wrong to impose conditions on the residence order that M should reside near to the school. The order relating to the specified school was discharged.



It was clear from the evidence that the contact order could not work given C's reluctance to see F, and to enforce the order could work adversely to the wishes of C. The order was suspended until further reconsideration by the High Court.



Appeal allowed.



Mary Lazarus for the appellant; the respondent in person.