THE suggestion by Caroline Nokes that those EU women unable to obtain settled status as they have not been exercising EU treaty rights (even those fleeing domestic violence) should simply move back to their country of origin is ignorant towards the complexity of the law and unfair towards EU mothers who cannot return to their home country (UK immigration minister: EU nationals fleeing domestic abuse should just go home, April 21).

One parent cannot decide to move a child out of the UK, as the child’s ties here need to be considered as well as existing law which requires, regardless of reasons, a written agreement from both parents listed on the birth certificate or a court order allowing removal of a child who is habitual resident in the UK. Moving your child without such consent and without obtaining a court order is a criminal offence with serious consequences.

READ MORE: Tory minister says EU citizens fleeing domestic abuse should go home

In a case where the other parent isn’t agreeing, you remain in the UK with your child until a family court decides on your future and, if unlucky, beyond. Even non-Brits have to apply for court orders to move their non-British children to their native country, and such permission is not always granted. So-called “Leave to remove” applications to family courts are not isolated cases but are frequently heard in courts.

I know well how difficult getting such permission is. Unable to afford a solicitor, I decided to prepare a “Leave to remove” application myself. The more I learned about the process, the more unfair it seemed. Refusal doesn’t need any justification but the relocating parent has to present proposals for future contact with the other parent, plans for employment, children’s accommodation, healthcare, schooling etc. How easily can you do this if the court process takes six to nine months or longer? Are you meant to buy or rent property hoping for the best outcome prior to court proceedings? How many employers can wait on you?

From case law I learned that relocation plans are often considered not well thought out by courts and that the fundamental right of free movement is just an illusion for single parents and their children. In one case a Portuguese mother requested to relocate her child following an application to family court made by her abusive ex seeking further contact. The court adjourned for five months, in favour of the father as he was referred to take part in a domestic violence prevention course to help him to improve his behaviours and potentially have more frequent contact with his child in the future.

In another case, Italian parents battled over the mother’s wish to relocate their child to Italy. Despite claiming she had experienced psychological and financial abuse at the hands of the father, the court considered such allegations irrelevant to the application. Her feelings of isolation and depression were trivialised by the judge, with the suggestion that being a sensible person she would surely meet new people and feel better in the future. The child was ordered to live in England in the shared care of both parents.

It seems those single parents who don’t have money for court and/or clear proposal for the future have to accept their own and their children’s future in the UK despite the uncertainty Brexit has created. Perhaps the government should take into account all possible reasons that people have for staying, and make support available for those in need. The government should be supporting those who will remain with social security and immigration matters, and providing legal aid to those who are willing to leave together with their children.

According to Gingerbread nearly 47% of children in single-parent families live in relative poverty, so it is safe to assume that many of those single carers need social security measures to support them.

Karin Medar
via email