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: VK v JV [2012] EWHC 4033 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:00 PM
Slug : abduction-vk-v-jv-2012-ewhc-4033-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 13, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 101655

 

(Family Division, Moor J, 26 November 2012)

The two children, aged 5 and 4, were both born in Latvia where their parents originated from. The parents moved to England to work, initially leaving the children with the maternal grandparents but subsequently returning as a family and living together for nearly 2 years before moving back to Latvia.

When the parents' relationship broke down the court authorised the father's aunt to care for the children while the parents returned to England separately. Three months later the mother returned to Latvia with the intention of removing the children to England. The parents came to an agreement whereby the 4-year-old child would return to England with the mother and the 5-year old would remain with the father. The agreement was to last for 6 months by which time if the father had not secured a flat in Latvia the 5-year old could also be permitted to go to England with the mother. The father returned to England and the 5-year old remained in Latvia with a relative and commenced school.

After 6 months the mother returned to Latvia and removed the 5-year old under the belief that she was entitled to do so because the agreement had expired. The father applied for a return order under the Hague Convention 1980.

On the facts both children had been habitually resident in Latvia on the respective date upon which they were removed based on the fact that the parents always intended to educate the children in Latvia and that they must have been habitually resident in Latvia in order for the court to permit their residence with the aunt.

It was clear from the agreement that the father had consented to the younger child's removal but he had not done so in respect of the older child and by the time they were removed the mother was aware of his objections. 

 

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