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: Re B (Abduction: Grave Risk) [2005] EWHC 2988 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:36 PM
Slug : re-b-abduction-grave-risk-2005-ewhc-2988-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 31, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88765

(Family Division; Sir Mark Potter P; 21 December 2005) [2006] 1 FLR 1095

The Australian court refused the English mother's application for leave to remove from the Australian jurisdiction, considering that a removal would damage the children's relationship with the father, and that the mother's psychological state was resilient enough to cope with the increased difficulties she would experience away from her family roots. The mother was awarded custody, with contact to the father on the basis of a requirement that the father not drink while with the children. On the mother's evidence the father breached that condition and the mother became increasingly depressed. Eventually, the mother wrongfully retained the children in England following a holiday. The mother's defence was that there was a grave risk to the children if they were ordered to return.

The court should not succumb to the temptation of a short cut solution. The proper solution was to return the children to Australia for the Australian court to reconsider the position on the mother's renewed application for leave to remove from the Australian jurisdiction. The Australian court should consider, among other issues, the mother's health, the father's non-payment of maintenance, and the father's apparent breach of the undertaking not to drink while the children were with him.

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