Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
View all articles
Authors

ABDUCTION: Re A (Custody); HA v MB [2007] EWHC 2016 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:07 PM
Slug : re-a-custody-ha-v-mb-2007-ewhc-2016-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 24, 2007, 06:27 AM
Article ID : 86827

(Family Division; Singer J; 24 August 2007)

The court issued procedural guidance in respect of applications under Art 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (Brussels II Revised) for a return order, pending the coming into force of the revised Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (SI 1991/1247). Cases in which a parent sought an order for return to England and Wales after an earlier foreign Art 13 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 (the Hague Convention) non-return order should be transferred to the Family Division in London for hearing before a judge of the Division. Where the English court had not been seised of issues concerning the child before the wrongful removal, so that Art 11(7) of Brussels II Revised applied, the parties had 3 months after having been notified of the non-return order by the English court or central authority, 'to make submissions to the court ... so that the court can examine the question of the custody of the child'. The obligation of the court to carry out that examination arose as a matter of indirect jurisdiction; it was at least questionable whether it could be encompassed within the remedies envisaged in the Children Act 1989. If the application were treated as a simple Children Act application, there was a risk that it would proceed in the wrong court. Therefore, in an application made using Children Act forms and procedures the parties should alert judges and court services staff to the nature of the application by marking all forms and other documents lodged in connection with the application 'In the Matter of the Children Act 1989 and/or in the matter of an application pursuant to Art 11(7) of the Brussels II Revised Regulation for the return of the child[ren] from [the member state in question]'. Internal procedures should be put in place to transfer the application at the earliest opportunity from the court of issue to the Family Division. Where Art 11(7) did not apply, because the English court had been seised by one of the parties prior to the removal, the appropriate procedure was to make the application for a return order in the existing proceedings, and to the issuing court, seeking 'directions in the light of the order made in [member state] on [date] declining in reliance upon Art 13 of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction to order the return of the child[ren] to England and Wales'. Such proceedings should then be transferred to the Family Division in London, if the case was not already being heard there.

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