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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
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