Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
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