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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
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....
View all articles
Authors

ABDUCTION: Re D (Article 13(B): Non-Return) [2005] EWHC 2920 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:38 PM
Slug : re-d-article-13-b-non-return-2005-ewhc-2920-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 15, 2005, 10:12 AM
Article ID : 89001

(Family Division; Macur J; 15 December 2005)

There had been a serious firearm assault on the English mother in the family home in Venezuela: she had been shot at close range receiving wounds to her face and right shoulder. The assailant claimed that he had been hired to shoot at the mother to frighten her. The mother suspected that the father had instigated the attack, but the father claimed that he had himself been attacked by unknown assailants for political reasons, and that the attack on the mother was probably similar in motive. The mother later removed the children to England, and the father sought the return of the children to Venezuela.

The judge found that there was a real risk of physical danger to the children in ordering a return to Venezuela, and that their psychological welfare would be put at risk if the mother returned pursuant to an order for the children's return. In this exceptional case, the court would exercise its discretion not to return the children. The judge made use of expert reports produced by experts providing therapy to the mother and children, distinguishing such use from the problematic use in Re B (Sexual Abuse: Experts Report) [2000] 1 FLR 871, and nonetheless being careful to take account only of the medical diagnosis and prognosis made upon facts sufficiently supported by the evidence, and not of any determination of the facts by the expert.

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