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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
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