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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

BRUSSELS II REVISED: J v J [2011] EWHC 3255 (QB)

Sep 29, 2018, 19:25 PM
Slug : 2011EWHC3255
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 6, 2012, 06:25 AM
Article ID : 97799

 (Family Division; Mostyn J; 28 November 2011)

 The mother took two children, then aged 5 and 1 to Austria and the father initiated Hague proceedings. An order was made 14 months previously in relation to parental responsibility on the basis that the mother would remain the primary care giver, and there was an expectation that it would be implemented in Austria. The father took no steps to bring the order to the Austrian court's attention but reinstituted Hague proceedings. The Austrian court refused the application to order the child's return.

The father abducted the 5 year old child to England. The siblings remained apart for 3 months with only Skype contact. The only solution was to order a return of the 5 year old to Austria for a welfare determination to be carried out.

It was in the best interests of the child to be reunited with its mother and sibling as soon as possible and a decision was made on welfare principles regarding residence and contact. Permission to appeal granted.

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