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: M v M

Sep 29, 2018, 16:34 PM
Slug : m-v-m
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 26, 2007, 06:27 AM
Article ID : 85451

(Family Division; Roderic Wood J; 26 July 2007)

The mother, the man she claimed was her husband and the children were living in the UK with no lawful right to be there. The children's father applied under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 and the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction dated 25 October 1980 (the Hague Convention) for return of the children to Zimbabwe, their (and the mother and father's) country of birth.

After the mother and father married in 2000 in Zimbabwe the relationship broke up and the mother left the children with the father. The mother left Zimbabwe, returning in 2004 when she argued that the father had consented to the plan she proposed which was that she would take the children to live in the UK with her new husband. The father argued that he consented to the children going with their mother for a short period of staying contact. It was only when they did not return that he discovered the mother had taken them to the UK. The father sought legal advice immediately but was not made aware of the Hague Convention until he read a newspaper article six months after the mother took the children to the UK. He immediately commenced Hague Convention proceedings.

The mother raised various defences including 'settlement' (Art 12), 'consent' and 'acquiescence' (Art 13 (a)), 'grave risk' (Art 13 (b)) and the children's objections (Art 13).

The judge found the mother to be devious and untrustworthy and could therefore place little or no confidence in her evidence. He found the father to be measured, frank and trustworthy.

On the evidence there was no doubt that the mother was planning to remove the children from Zimbabwe for many months before she did so and knew that she would never obtain the father's consent. There was no evidence that the father acquiesced to the removal of the children. Neither was the defence of grave risk/intolerability made out. The children were, however, settled in the UK within the meaning of Art 12 of the Hague Convention. Having considered the children's objections, there was nothing in the case which would qualify it as exceptional and the judge declined to exercise his discretion under Art 18 against a return. The father's undertakings would be accepted and the children would be ordered to return to Zimbabwe.

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