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...
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

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 :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from