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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

ABDUCTION: A v A [2013] EWHC 3298 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:53 PM
Slug : abduction-a-v-a-2013-ewhc-3298-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 19, 2013, 03:41 AM
Article ID : 104053

(Family Division, Parker J, 7 October 2013)

The case was remitted to the Family Division following the decision of the Supreme Court, Re A ( A Child) [2013] UKSC 60, for a decision as to whether the High Court should exercise its discretion to order the child's ‘return' to the UK on the basis that he was a British national although he had been born in Pakistan and had never set foot in this jurisdiction.

In the absence of habitual residence as a basis for jurisdiction, BIIR provided for the court to have recourse to national law, in this case, the Family Law Act 1986.

Although the father decided during the hearing that he should return all four children to the UK, Parker J approached the concession cautiously and proceeded to determine the issue in line with the guidance from the Supreme Court.

On the facts of the case, England was the most appropriate forum in which to determine the children's future care arrangements. The older children had lived most of their lives here, the father was born here and if proceedings took place in Pakistan the mother would face a number of practical problems including opposition from the father's family with little support from her own family.

A return order was made in respect of all four children. The father's application to vary a freezing order was denied. His evidence as to his resources had been unclear and while the order remained in place it offered security for the father's compliance with the return order.

 

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