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

ABDUCTION: Re FT and NT [2013] EWHC 850 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:04 PM
Slug : abduction-re-ft-and-nt-2013-ewhc-850-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 17, 2013, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 102157

(Family Division, Pauffley J, 11 April 2013)

The British mother and father had two children, aged 4 and 2, and relocated to Canada where they were granted permanent residency. Three months after they had permanently relocated the parents relationship broke down and they reached an agreement whereby they would care for the children on alternate weeks within the family home.

The father took the children's passports and despite assuring the mother that he would not remove them, he flew back to the UK with them claiming they would return within 10 days. However, he failed to return and notified the mother that he would only do so if his solicitor instructed him to do so. Thereafter the mother initiated Hague Convention proceedings for a summary return of the children to Canada.

The father's defence was that while it had always been their intention to move to Canada there was an agreement that if one of them didn't settle then they would return to the UK. In circumstances where they retained a property in the UK and separated only 3 months after the relocation, the children remained habitually resident in the UK.

On the totality of the evidence, there was no conclusion other than the children had become habitually resident at the time of their removal to the UK. The evidence in support of that case was overwhelming: the parents had over a period of several years, engaged in the process of applying for permanence residency in Canada; the parents had resigned from their jobs in the UK and shipped their belongings to Canada; the children were enrolled in school and nursery; the parents were establishing their careers there. There was no evidence that the parents had made an agreement to return to the UK if one of them failed to settle in Canada. The court granted the mother a return order.

 

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