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
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
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