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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
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