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...
Latest articles
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles

ABDUCTION: Re F (Abduction: Child's Wishes) [2007] EWCA Civ 468

Sep 29, 2018, 17:08 PM
Slug : re-f-abduction-child-s-wishes-2007-ewca-civ-468
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 27, 2007, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87047

(Court of Appeal; 27 March 2007; Thorpe and Smith LJJ and Munby J)

The House of Lords decision in Re D (Abduction) [2006] UKHL 51, [2007] 1 FLR 961 should have focussed attention on steps that needed to be taken to ensure that in every case the child was given an opportunity to be heard, under Brussels II Revised, art 11(2). As it was clear that the obligation to hear the child must not override the obligation to conclude proceedings within 6 weeks of issue, also under art 11, in future the question of when and how the court would hear the child, in discharge of the obligations under art 11(2), would have to be considered at the first directions appointment and any subsequent directions appointment, in order to ensure that this central ingredient of the case was never out of the spotlight in all abduction cases. Of course there would be cases in which specialist counsel had failed to run below a case which might have been, or perhaps should have been run, but such cases were likely to be rare and the court must scrutinise assertions that those who had held responsibility for the presentation of the respondent's case at trial had been in some way blind to an opportunity or neglected their opportunities. Any application for permission to appeal should clearly be made to the trial judge; if refused by the trial judge, he or she should set the date by which the notice of appeal must be lodged. Although the general rules of the court allowed 21 days, that period might be either extended or reduced by the trial judge, and 7 days, rather than 21 days, should be the norm in any case subject to the 6 week time limit.

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