Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
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...
View all articles
Authors

ABDUCTION: Re C (Abduction: Settlement) [2006] EWHC 1229 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:26 PM
Slug : re-c-abduction-settlement-2006-ewhc-1229-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 7, 2006, 10:20 AM
Article ID : 86409

(Family Division; Sir Mark Potter P; 25 May 2006)

In relation to the issue of settlement, the President of the Family Division commended the approach taken by Kirkwood J in Re C (Abduction: Settlement) (No 2) [2005] 1 FLR 938: the court was to have particular regard to (a) the purposes of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 (the Hague Convention); (b) the abductor's wrongdoing; (c) the injustice to the other parent, and (d) the welfare of the child. The court should be alert not to allow abducting parents to gain advantage for themselves by wrongful actions in removing the child, yet Art 12(2) of the Hague Convention provided an instance in which an order for return was not the automatic response. In this case the necessary physical element of settlement had been established after 5 years within a small community. The fact that a child or teenager was unsettled in her own emotional or psychological state did not demonstrate that she was not well settled for Hague Convention purposes. Although there was in principle a threat of deportation, no warning or notice of such deportation had been issued, despite Home Office awareness of the situation, and there was no question of extradition proceedings. The child was settled in England, and the position had been reached whereby the US court was no longer in a noticeably better position than the English court to decide welfare questions concerning the child.

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