The High Court has refused a mother’s application to permanently relocate her three children from Rome to Denmark, finding that the move would not serve their best interests at this time.
In a judgment delivered on 23 July 2021, Ms Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon said the children had settled again in Rome after being returned there from Denmark in December 2019. They were attending the same English-language international school and had resumed a week-on, week-off shared parenting arrangement with their parents. The judge said that arrangement was working well and should continue, alongside the family’s ongoing therapeutic work.
The mother argued that Denmark would offer a more relaxed life, family support, better work prospects for her and suitable education and services for the children. She proposed regular travel and shared holidays to maintain their relationship with their father. The father opposed relocation, saying the children were thriving in Rome, had important friendships and needed stability and frequent contact with both parents.
The court considered a psychologist’s assessment and interviewed each child. The judge said the children were mature enough for their views to carry significant weight. They wanted to remain together as siblings, continue seeing both parents regularly and avoid another move. The court found that they feared losing contact with one parent if their parents lived in different countries.
The judge did not accept several of the psychologist’s recommendations in favour of relocation, including the assessment that the mother had greater capacity to meet the needs of the two younger children. The court found that both parents could care for the children and that the children needed the stability and differing strengths each parent provided. It also considered the children’s education, friendships, emotional needs and progress in therapy, and found that another move would risk significant disruption.
The judgment recounts earlier Hague Convention proceedings after the mother took the children to Denmark without the father’s consent. Danish courts ordered their return to Rome, and an appeal was unsuccessful. The High Court stressed that those return proceedings and the present welfare decision served distinct purposes; it assessed relocation under the children’s best interests and did not treat the earlier events as an automatic bar to the mother’s application.
The order refused permission to relocate the children to Denmark. The court said it was not making new access or custody directions on this motion, because relocation was the only relief sought and the father had not brought a cross-application. The parents remain joint guardians with shared parenting by agreement, and the children are to remain based in Rome pending further court orders or agreement. The judicial separation proceedings have not been finalised.