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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
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