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

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