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...
Latest articles
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Perspectives on civil partnerships and marriages in England and Wales: aspects, attitudes and assessments
IntroductionThis article considers the developments since the turn of the century in the provision of new options for same sex and opposite sex couples to formalise their unions with full legal...
Family Law journal - take the survey and you could win £50 worth of vouchers
Do you subscribe to Family Law journal?Our aim is to provide all subscribers of Family Law with compelling, insightful and helpful content that you enjoy reading and find useful in your...
Commencement date of 6 April 2022 announced for the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020
The Ministry of Justice has announced that the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020), which received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020, will now have a commencement date of 6 April 2022....
HMCTS blog highlights the use of video hearing due to COVID-19
HM Courts & Tribunals Service has published a blog detailing the impacts of coronavirus (COVID-19) on hearings. Pre-pandemic, HMCTS states that the use of video technology for live participation...
View all articles

ABDUCTION: D v S [2008]

Sep 29, 2018, 17:33 PM
Slug : d-v-s-2008
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 15, 2008, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88203

(Family Division; Charles J; 19 March 2008)

The father, who shared the child's care with the mother, had agreed to the family moving from Mexico to England for a period, on the basis that the move would be temporary rather than permanent. The mother had never intended to return with the child to Mexico. When the mother's intentions became clear, the father failed to initiate Hague Convention proceedings straight away, having received advice that such a claim was unlikely to succeed. However, his eventual application for the child's summary return to Mexico was made before the child became settled.

Refusing to make an order for the summary return of the child to Mexico, but giving the father permission to take the child back to Mexico after the Mexican courts had had an opportunity to determine the welfare issues, the court held that there had been a wrongful removal under the Convention, that the father had acquiesced by failing to initiate Hague proceedings, but that a return to Mexico was in the child's best interests. Subjective acquiescence could be established by showing an adequately informed subjective decision not to seek a summary return under the Hague Convention, even if that decision was based on advice that summary return would not be ordered. A person who acted on advice as to his rights or his prospects of successfully making a claim, or who received and acted on advice that had considered those matters, had to take the consequences of doing so, by reference to the knowledge of all the advisers who took part in the decision-making process. Correct legal advice was not an essential ingredient of acquiescence. Advice on the Hague Convention should be given after careful enquiry as to the position of the parent who might rely on it, and in many cases when a wrongful removal was under consideration an express reservation of the right to bring proceedings for a summary return might be advisable.

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