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...
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles

ABDUCTION: Re H, R and E [2013] EWHC 3857 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:57 PM
Slug : abduction-re-h-r-and-e-2013-ewhc-3857-fam
Meta Title : ABDUCTION: Re H, R and E [2013] EWHC 3857 (Fam)
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 19, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 104317

(Family Division, Keehan J, 2 September 2013)

The father issued Hague Convention proceedings seeking return orders in respect of his three children. The mother defended the proceedings claiming the father consented to the removal of the children from the Netherlands in accordance with Art 13a of the Hague Convention and that subsequently he had acquiesced in their remaining in this jurisdiction. She further claimed that the children would be at a grave risk of harm and/or would be placed in an intolerable position if they were returned, due to her allegations of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of the father.

On the evidence it was apparent that no one had spoken to the father about the removal of the children and, therefore, he could not consent. He had waited 2 months after he became aware of the situation to try and affect a reconciliation which was reasonable and did not amount to acquiescence.

The judge found that the mother had lied about sexual abuse and that there was insufficient evidence to support the claims of physical abuse. However, the father provided undertakings to regulate his behaviour with the mother and evidence was provided as to the assistance that was available from the Dutch court and police. On that basis there was no grave risk of harm.

In determining whether it should exercise its discretion the court found that it was manifestly in the best interests of the children to return to the Netherlands where they had lived all their lives prior to the removal.


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