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
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
Authors

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