Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

ABDUCTION: S v C [2011] EWCA Civ 1385

Sep 29, 2018, 19:16 PM
Slug : 2011EWCACiv1385
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 8, 2011, 12:50 PM
Article ID : 97431

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Longmore, McFarlane LJJ; 2 December 2011)

The father was Australian and mother had dual British and Australian nationality. They had  one child. The mother had taken out an apprehended domestic violence order against the father.  The mother took the child to England and the father initiated Hague Convention proceedings. The father gave a number of undertakings should the mother and child return to Australia. Medical evidence showed that that mother had suffered from acute stress and contact with the father would place her at further risk. Charles J influenced by guidance in Re E [2011] UKSC 27 which refused the father's return application for a return order. The father appealed.

Re E had not altered the law in this area, it supported the accepted construction of the Hague Convention that exceptions to return are welfare based, no judicial gloss required. Paradigm case for a return order to the child's country of habitual residence for judicial determination of the issue of where the child should live. The guidance regarding directions to the court, often caused more difficulties than if the matter had been set down for determination on a summary basis. The Supreme Court could not have intended to set up a new practice in Re E, if the practice had sprung up it should be stifled immediately.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from