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
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Perspectives on civil partnerships and marriages in England and Wales: aspects, attitudes and assessments
IntroductionThis article considers the developments since the turn of the century in the provision of new options for same sex and opposite sex couples to formalise their unions with full legal...
Family Law journal - take the survey and you could win £50 worth of vouchers
Do you subscribe to Family Law journal?Our aim is to provide all subscribers of Family Law with compelling, insightful and helpful content that you enjoy reading and find useful in your...
Commencement date of 6 April 2022 announced for the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020
The Ministry of Justice has announced that the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020), which received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020, will now have a commencement date of 6 April 2022....
HMCTS blog highlights the use of video hearing due to COVID-19
HM Courts & Tribunals Service has published a blog detailing the impacts of coronavirus (COVID-19) on hearings. Pre-pandemic, HMCTS states that the use of video technology for live participation...
View all articles
Authors

ABDUCTION: Z v Z [2012] EWHC 3954 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:00 PM
Slug : abduction-z-v-z-2012-ewhc-3954-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 15, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 101663

(Family Division, Hogg J, 21 December 2012)

The parents, who were cousins, were married by Nikah in Pakistan. Following the marriage the father returned to the UK while the mother remained in Pakistan. The father returned to Pakistan to visit the mother but when the mother's visa application was refused the father moved to Pakistan on a permanent basis.

The child, now 3, was born in Pakistan and the family moved into the ancestral home. When the father opened a fabric shop he began spending several nights per week away from the home and had in fact entered into a second marriage. Following an agreement the father claimed he divorced the second wife.

When a British passport was obtained for the child from the High Commission in Islamabad the father took her to the UK. The father claimed the mother knew they were going and packed a bag for the child. The mother disputed this and claimed to have been extremely distressed. She immediately issued proceedings through a family member to have the child returned to Pakistan.

In proceedings in the English court a number of witnesses gave evidence via video-link from Pakistan, including the mother as she was not permitted entry to the UK in order to give evidence. That evidence supported the mother's claim that she did not consent to the child's removal. The judge made declarations that the child was habitually resident in Pakistan and was unlawfully removed by the father.

It was in the best interests of the child to return to Pakistan. After being born and raised for 3 years in Pakistan she had been removed from her mother and placed in a totally alien environment. The mother had no possibility for the foreseeable future of obtaining a visa to live in the UK and therefore if the child were returned she would be lost to her forever. However, the father was free to return to Pakistan if he wished. 

 

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