Now published as a downloadable pdf on the home page of www.thecustodyminefield.com, the legal arguments for a challenge to Payne v Payne at appeal in the Royal Courts of Justice - the format provided is a submission for a permission to appeal hearing before Lord Justices of Appeal.
You will notice that the main thrust of this generic submission is in circumstances where the trial judge relied on the guidance of Payne v Payne (which they are ‘bound’ to do), and that that guidance affords too little weight to contemporary scientific child welfare research which highlights potential emotional, psychological and developmental harm which a child is likely to suffer when denied substantial involvement from both parents in their day-to-day care. Further, that Payne v Payne affords great weight to the distress argument, despite there being no scientific evidence to support the assumption that refusal of a leave to remove application will so adversely impact the primary carer that it will cause harm to the children. Further, that LJ Thorpe, in Payne v Payne, did not accept that the comparative importance of fathers had changed in 30 years as no authorities were presented by counsel to support such a finding. In this submission, we highlight a number of research authorities which have been published in the years following the judgment in Payne v Payne.