Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
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...
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