When parents separate, the Family Court will usually try to preserve stability in a child's life. Judges are often reluctant to change a child's living arrangements unless there is a very good reason to do so. This is why the recent High Court decision in B v G (Test for Appeal) [2026] EWHC 2668 (Fam) is so interesting.
The court upheld a decision to remove a nine-year-old boy, known as O, from his mother's care and place him with his father. Even more remarkably, the transfer was ordered to take place immediately.
On the face of it, this probably seems surprising. There were no concerns the father posed any safeguarding risk to O and the concerns previously raised about him had not been substantiated. At the same time, O had been living with his mother and had an established life there.
So why would a court take the significant step of changing a child's residence?
Children need both parents
One of the central principles of family law is that, wherever it is safe and in a child's best interests, children should have a meaningful relationship with both parents.
The Family Court takes a dim view of situations where one parent undermines, frustrates or prevents that relationship from developing. Judges increasingly recognise that, over time, the loss of a relationship with a loving and capable parent can itself be harmful to a child.
In O's case, the court was concerned about the state of his relationship with his father. The evidence suggested that relationship had become seriously disrupted and that efforts to rebuild it had not succeeded.
Ultimately, the judge concluded that a change of residence was necessary to restore and protect the father-child relationship.
A rare but powerful remedy
Changing a child's home is one of the most significant orders the Family Court can make.
In many cases where a parent is failing to encourage contact, the court will first try less drastic measures. These may include contact orders, parenting programmes, warnings from the court or increased involvement from social services.
However, there are occasions when a judge concludes that these measures are unlikely to work.
In these circumstances, the court may decide that the parent who is most likely to support the child's relationship with the other parent should become the child's primary carer.
This appears to be the thinking behind the decision in this case.
The court concluded that O's father would promote and facilitate the child's ongoing relationship with his mother, whereas the existing arrangements were not adequately supporting the father-child relationship. Contact between O and his mother was therefore preserved even after the transfer of residence.
Why did continuity not win this time?
Many parents assume that because a child has been living with one parent for a long period, the court will always leave things as they are.
Continuity is certainly important. Stability, routine, schooling, friendships and sibling relationships all matter enormously to the court.
The mother relied on a number of these arguments during the proceedings. Issues including O's wishes and feelings, sibling relationships, the father's parenting abilities and the mother's mental health history were all raised. However, the court ultimately concluded that these factors did not outweigh the need to restore the child's relationship with his father.
The case demonstrates that continuity is an important factor, but it is not the only factor. If a court believes that a child's long-term welfare is being damaged by the erosion of an important parental relationship, it may be prepared to make a far-reaching order to address that situation.
What can parents learn from this case?
For us, the key message is straightforward.
The Family Court expects both parents to encourage and support a child's relationship with the other parent, provided it is safe to do so. Parents are not expected to agree with each other or have a perfect co-parenting relationship. They are, however, expected to put the child's emotional needs above adult conflict.
Cases where a child is transferred from one parent to another remain relatively unusual. However, B v G is a reminder that when a court believes one parent is failing to support the child's relationship with the other, a change of residence is a remedy that remains available.
The decision sends a clear message. In modern family law, a parent's willingness and ability to promote a child's relationship with the other parent can be one of the most important factors in determining where that child should live.
If you are facing a custody issue and would like to speak to one of our highly experienced Family Law team, please contact us in confidence today.