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: 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