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 [2007] EWHC 1404 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:20 PM
Slug : m-v-m-2007-ewhc-1404-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 18, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 89397

(Family Division; Sumner J; 14 June 2007)

The parents moved to Greece when the children were quite young. The couple's relationship deteriorated and the mother informed the father that she wanted a divorce and would return to England with the children. With the father's agreement the mother moved to England and searched for English schools. The school she identified had only one place available, so the mother and the children returned to Greece for a brief period. When two places became available, the mother and the children returned to England. The father telephoned frequently but made no request for their return. The mother instructed solicitors to issue a petition for divorce, in addition to a claim for ancillary relief. The father then attempted to persuade the mother to return; when she refused he applied for the summary return of the children under the Hague Convention. The mother claimed that the father had consented to the removal of the children from Greece. The father claimed that it had always been intended that he would join the mother and children in England, or in the alternative that he had rescinded the consent originally given.

The mother had proved that the father had consented to the removal to England; there was evidence of clear and cogent consent and there had been no effective rescission of that consent. The father's change of mind resulted from the father realising the potential financial consequences of an English divorce; this was not a change of mind that in some way altered the original consent. The court was reluctant to find that discussion after separation in Convention cases, with a view to possible reconciliation, could thereafter be held against either party. Exercising the court's discretion to return the children in a case in which one party had clearly consented to removal would amount to the consenting party being given the option to change their mind after the other party had acted in reliance on the consent. It might be appropriate to order summary return in certain cases, but not in the instant case.

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