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: B v D [2008] EWHC 1246 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:08 PM
Slug : b-v-d-2008-ewhc-1246-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 22, 2008, 09:38 AM
Article ID : 86987

(Family Division; Baron J; 22 April 2008)

The children had been living in England with their British mother and their Portuguese father. The mother had agreed to the children being sent to Portugal for a time to be educated, while both parents remained in England, but had not realised at that time that the father considered that the marriage was over. Having experienced difficulties in having contact with the children, the mother sought an order for their return under the inherent jurisdiction of the English court, rather than bringing proceedings in Portugal under the Hague Convention. After the English proceedings began the father moved to Portugal, where he began proceedings of his own.

The children's habitual residence had remained in England, as had the habitual residence of both parents in the relevant period. The mother's consent to the children moving to Portugal for a time had not been based on full or informed information; she had consented only to a temporary move while the parents attempted to resolve their differences. Where two remedies were available in different courts in different jurisdictions it was not the case that Hague Convention proceedings should take automatic precedence; wardship was not excluded simply because the Hague Convention provided an alternative remedy. If the domestic court found that it had jurisdiction and that children had been wrongfully retained outside the jurisdiction, the domestic court was in a very good position to make specific findings. If the facts demanded an order that the children return to the jurisdiction, the domestic court could make that order without acting in derogation or contrary to the order of any foreign court. In fact the domestic court would be assisting the foreign court. In this case the English proceedings had begun first, and therefore under Brussels II Revised once the English court accepted jurisdiction, the Portuguese court was bound to cede to the English court.

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