Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles

ABDUCTION:Re I (A Child: Habitual Residence) [2012] EWHC 3363 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:34 PM
Slug : abduction-re-i-a-child-habitual-residence-2012-ewhc-3363-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 10, 2012, 09:06 AM
Article ID : 101133

(Family Division, Peter Jackson J, 3 December 2012)

The Nigerian parents placed their 2-year-old child in the care of his maternal aunt and uncle, who had leave to remain in the UK, and returned to Nigeria. The parents signed a document stating the the aunt and uncle were the child's guardians and next of kin. For 5 years they took responsibility for the child, arranging his schooling and day-to-day care, while the parents occasionally visited him.

When the parents visited the child, now 7, with his older brother they abducted him and flew home via Dubai. The aunt and uncle were granted a residence order and the parents were ordered to return the child. Proceedings were transferred to the High Court and the judge found the child's place of habitual residence was the UK and set a deadline for the child's return. The mother claimed that the aunt and uncle knew of her plan to return the child to Nigeria and had been given a document stating that they were no longer the guardians and next of kin of the child. They denied this and claimed to have been unaware of the parents' plans.

The parents submitted that as the child was now habitually resident in Nigeria the English court did not have jurisdiction to determine the matter.

The judge attached considerable weight to the length of time the child had spent in the UK. The parents could not change his habitual residence by exercise of will when they had had very little input into his life for the past 5 years. The child was habitually resident when the orders were made and the English court, therefore, had jurisdiction to make the orders it did.

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