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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
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....
View all articles
Authors

ABDUCTION: Re J

Sep 29, 2018, 21:30 PM
Slug : ReJ02032012
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
Article ID : 98267

(Family Division; Baker J; 2 March 2012)

Judgment following on from Re AJ (Brussels II Revised) [2011] EWHC 3450 (Fam), FLR forthcoming. Since the previous hearing, some, although not all, of the contact ordered on the last occasion had taken place. The guardian who was of the view that the father, because of his failure to accept that the child would remain living in Poland with his mother, might not have the necessary motivation to make contact work and that that the mother had not done anything to obstruct contact.

The time had come to make a residence order amounting to a judgment on custody within the meaning of Article 10(b)(iv) because he considered that the mother had now demonstrated a commitment to contact.

The fact that hitherto a final order for residence had not been made had created some uncertainty in that the father and the paternal grandparents were continuing to assert, through the Guardian, that the court should reverse its earlier decision concerning where the child should live and direct that he be returned to England. The Polish courts would now determine contact issues.

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