Latest articles
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...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

ABDUCTION: MM v VM (Abduction)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:33 PM
Slug : mm-v-vm-abduction
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 24, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88335

(Thorpe, Longmore and Moore-Bick LJJ; Court of Appeal; 12 September 2007)

The father applied for summary return of the children to Zimbabwe. The court rejected the mother's defence of grave risk, concluding that this was a Zimbabwean case. The children had been born and raised in Zimbabwe, neither they nor their mother had any lawful right to remain in the UK and, although settlement had been established, the judge exercised his discretion for an immediate return.

The mother's appeal was dismissed. The judge had exercised his residual discretion without misdirection, had not attached weight to immaterial matters and had not disregarded to any degree the material matters. There were no circumstances in the instant case that amounted to a defence under Art 13(b) of the Hague Convention. The balance clearly tipped in favour of ordering the return of the children to Zimbabwe.

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