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
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles
Authors

ABDUCTION: M v M [2008] EWHC 2049 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:11 PM
Slug : m-v-m-2008-ewhc-2049-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 20, 2008, 09:39 AM
Article ID : 87195

(Family Division; Black J; 20 August 2008)

The Polish children were first retained by the Polish father in England at the end of a holiday. Under a consent order the father eventually returned the children to Poland, but subsequently used passports that had been cancelled by the Polish court to abduct the children back to England, concealing their destination. The mother issued Hague proceedings as soon as she had traced the children's whereabouts, but by the time the case came to court the children had lived in England for just over one year, raising the possibility of a defence of settlement under Hague Convention on Abduction, Art 12.

While the court must be careful not to be inappropriately influenced by the fact that a parent had behaved in a way open to considerable criticism, and it was accepted that it did not follow from the fact that a parent had been in a vulnerable and watchful state of mind that the children would have been unable to settle into their new environment, these two children, who had been very aware of the possibility that they might have to return to Poland, and had both been subjected to parental influence leading them to express extreme preferences for remaining in England, were not settled within Art 12.

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