Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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