The High Court has upheld a decision requiring a nine-year-old boy to move from his mother’s care to live with his father, after considering challenges to the lower court’s welfare assessment and the procedure followed.
What did the High Court decide?
In B v G (Test for Appeal) [2026] EWHC 2668 (Fam), handed down on 22 October 2026, Mrs Justice Lieven considered the mother’s appeal against a decision made by Recorder Ranjit Singh at Horsham Family Court on 17 August 2026.
The lower court had ordered that the child, referred to in the judgment as O, move from his mother’s care to his father’s care. The High Court refused permission to appeal on eight grounds. It considered the challenge to the departure from the local authority’s proposed transition plan arguable, but dismissed the appeal on that ground too.
The High Court concluded that the transfer was in O’s best interests. It ordered the transfer to take place that afternoon, arranged for the paternal grandmother to collect him from school, made provision for contact with his mother and directed that the case be listed for review in approximately six weeks.
How did the family dispute arise?
The proceedings concerned arrangements for O, whose parents had a lengthy history of disputes about contact. The children had previously spent time in foster care between September 2020 and June 2021 because of concerns relating to their mother’s mental health. Care proceedings concluded in October 2021 with a Supervision Order and an interim arrangement for O to spend seven weekends out of eight with his father.
A final Child Arrangements Order made in December 2023 provided for O to live with his mother and spend time with his father on alternate Saturdays, with contact intended to become unsupported. In July 2025, the mother suspended direct contact, raising safeguarding concerns about the father. The judgment records that neither the police nor the local authority substantiated those concerns.
The father subsequently applied to enforce the existing order. Following reports by a local authority social worker, including an addendum report recommending a change of residence, the matter came before the Recorder in August 2026. After hearing the social worker’s evidence and cross-examination, the Recorder ordered O to move to his father’s care.
- The children spend a period in foster care.
- Care proceedings conclude with a Supervision Order and interim contact arrangements.
- A Child Arrangements Order provides for O to live with his mother and spend time with his father.
- The father applies to enforce the existing order.
- The Recorder orders O’s residence to transfer to his father.
- The High Court refuses permission on eight grounds and dismisses the appeal on the remaining ground.
What were the grounds of appeal?
The mother advanced nine grounds. They included alleged failures to consider O’s wishes and feelings and his relationship with his half-brother; departure from the local authority’s transition plan; insufficient scrutiny of the father’s parenting capacity and mental health; excessive weight given to the mother’s mental health; procedural unfairness; and an alleged error in the legal approach.
Mrs Justice Lieven found that the Recorder had considered O’s wishes and feelings, including his wish for increased contact with his father, stability at school, ongoing relationships with family members and predictable care from both parents. Although O had not been asked directly whether he wanted to live full-time with his father, the social worker had explained why asking a child to choose between parents could be upsetting and confusing.
The judgment also found that the Recorder had expressly considered the likely effect on O’s relationship with his half-brother. The court emphasised that the welfare analysis had to focus on this child and his circumstances rather than draw broad conclusions from other parental-alienation cases.
Other grounds relating to the father’s accommodation, parenting capacity and mental health were rejected. The court noted that the local authority had assessed the father’s home and parenting, and that support could be provided if difficulties arose. The procedural challenge also failed: the mother and her legal representatives knew that the social worker was recommending a transfer of residence, and the court said a Dispute Resolution Appointment can, where appropriate, result in such an order.
Why was the transition-plan ground arguable?
The local authority had proposed a two-week transition, gradually increasing contact before the move. The mother argued that an immediate transfer was too abrupt and that the Recorder had not clearly explained his departure from the proposed safeguards.
Mrs Justice Lieven considered this ground arguable because the reasons for departing from the local authority’s plan had not been clearly set out. However, the judgment explained that, after the Recorder announced his decision, the mother made clear that she would not cooperate with the transition plan. The Recorder considered that without her cooperation the plan was unlikely to work and could cause the child further distress. A stay had also been granted while the mother sought permission to appeal.
The High Court therefore dismissed the appeal on this ground. It concluded that, in the circumstances, an immediate transfer was in O’s best interests and would help establish his relationship with his father. The judgment described the change as not necessarily a permanent arrangement and directed a further review of the situation.
What does the judgment mean for family law?
The decision illustrates the appellate court’s approach to welfare decisions in private family proceedings. An appeal court does not simply substitute its own view where a lower-court decision falls within the range of conclusions reasonably open to the judge. The question is whether the decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity.
The judgment also reiterates that the child’s welfare remains central. A court considering a change of residence must weigh the child’s wishes and feelings, relationships with parents and siblings, emotional needs, stability and the practical support available. The judgment does not establish a general rule that a child should be moved immediately in disputes about contact; it turns on the evidence and circumstances of this family.
For practitioners, the case underlines the importance of clearly explaining why a court departs from a professional transition plan, while also recognising that the court may need to make decisive arrangements where a gradual plan is unlikely to be workable. The judgment’s strict anonymity direction must be observed in any reporting: the children and family members must not be identified.
Frequently asked questions
Did the mother win her appeal?
No. Permission was refused on eight grounds, and the appeal was dismissed on the one ground the High Court considered arguable.
Why was the transition-plan ground considered arguable?
The High Court considered that the Recorder had not clearly set out reasons for departing from the local authority’s proposed two-week transition plan. The appeal was nevertheless dismissed on that ground.
Was the move intended to be permanent?
The judgment described the transfer as a way to re-establish a strong relationship between O and his father, with the longer-term arrangements to be considered later. A review was directed for approximately six weeks after the decision.
Can a residence-transfer order be made at a Dispute Resolution Appointment?
The High Court said there is no general principle preventing such an order at a Dispute Resolution Appointment. It may be appropriate where the court considers it justified, subject to the usual requirements of fairness.
What anonymity restrictions apply?
The judgment was delivered in private and published subject to a strict requirement that the anonymity of the children and family members be preserved. Reporting must not identify them.