Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
View all articles
Authors

ABDUCTION: Carlson v Switzerland

Sep 29, 2018, 16:12 PM
Slug : carlson-v-switzerland
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 10, 2008, 11:35 AM
Article ID : 84889

(European Court of Human Rights; 10 November 2008)

The Swiss mother and the American father lived with the child in the US, but the mother and child travelled to Switzerland with the father's consent. The mother decided to remain in Switzerland, petitioning the Swiss court for divorce and requesting a residence order in respect of the child. The father applied for the child's summary return under the Hague Convention. The Swiss court joined the two sets of proceedings, and eventually, after more than 3 months, rejected the father's application, on the basis that the father had been unable to submit evidence in support of his allegation that he had agreed to the mother's visit to Switzerland only on condition that at the end of the visit she return the child to the USA. The father alleged that his right under European Convention on Human Rights, Art 8, to respect for his family life, had been breached.

The child's best interests, understood as a decision on his immediate return to his habitual place of residence, had not been taken into account by the Swiss courts when evaluating the request for his return, and the father's right to respect for his family life had not been protected in an effective manner by the domestic courts. It was clear that under Hague Convention, Art 16, proceedings on the merits of residence rights were to be suspended until a decision had been reached about the child's return, therefore the decision to join the domestic and Hague proceedings had been contrary to the terms of the Hague Convention. The Swiss court had not acted expeditiously, contrary to Art 11 of the Hague Convention. Finally, the court had reversed the burden of proof, contrary to Art 13 of the Hague Convention, in that the father had been required to 'establish' that he had not consented to child's removal or non-return.

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