ABSTRACT
This chapter proceeds by explaining why relocation disputes raise gendered issues around the exercise of responsibilities. It looks at the current law in England, and explores why it is that many of those gendered concerns appear, at least superficially, to have been addressed or avoided by the English courts. If the court imposes a condition on internal relocation or refuses permission for an international relocation, the parent remains free to move, so long as they do not contravene the order by taking the child with them. However, relocation is an example par excellence of gender-blind rules leading to potentially gender-biased outcomes. On international relocation, the provisions in the Children Act 1989 mean that the initial onus of making an application to relocate overseas is on the parent seeking to relocate. Jonathan Herring and Rachel Taylor criticize the English approach in legal terms by pointing to the court's disengagement from the rights dimension of relocation disputes.
