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
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,...
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...
View all articles
Authors

Re KP (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 554

Sep 29, 2018, 21:50 PM
The return order in relation to the 13-year-old child was set aside as the meeting between the child and judge went beyond the scope envisaged in the Guidelines for Judges Meeting Children who are Subject to Family Proceedings (April 2010).
Slug : re-kp-a-child-2014-ewca-civ-554
Meta Title : re-kp-a-child-2014-ewca-civ-554
Meta Keywords : Abduction, Hague Convention, Judge meeting child
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 2, 2014, 02:47 AM
Article ID : 105651

Please see the attached PDF file below for the full judgment.

(Court of Appeal, Moore-Bick, Black, McFarlane LJJ, 1 May 2014)

Abduction - Hague Convention - Meeting between child and judge - Scope of meeting

The return order in relation to the 13-year-old child was set aside as the meeting between the child and judge went beyond the scope envisaged in theGuidelines for Judges Meeting Children who are Subject to Family Proceedings (April 2010).

The 13-year-old Maltese child had lived in Malta her entire life until the mother brought her to the UK without the father's knowledge or consent. The father issued Hague Convention proceedings seeking the child's return.

When the matter reached a final hearing the mother accepted that the father had rights of custody and that her removal of the child had been wrongful under the Hague Convention. During proceedings the judge met with the child and sought to probe her wishes and feelings by asking 87 questions. He thereafter rejected the Cafcass evidence and ordered the child's return to Malta. The mother appealed.

The appeal was allowed and the return order was set aside. It was a well established principle that a child should be heard in Hague Convention proceedings which involved listening to the child's point of view and hearing what they had to say. Usually those views would be obtained by a Cafcass officer but in some cases it might be necessary for the judge to meet the child directly. Such a meeting was an opportunity for the child to convey his or her views to the judge and for the judge to explain the proceedings to the child and why a decision might be made in contrast to the child's views.

Applying the Guidelines for Judges Meeting Children who are Subject to Family Proceedings (April 2010), the meeting in this case went well beyond the passive role envisaged in the guidelines and strayed into the process of gathering evidence. The judge had erred in regarding the meeting as being an opportunity for the child to make representations and submissions to her.

The fully referenced, judicially approved judgment and headnote will appear in a forthcoming issue of Family Law Reports. A detailed summary and analysis of the case will appear in Family Law.

__________________________________________________________________

Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWCA Civ 554

Case No: B4/2013/3415;B4/2013/3415 (B)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM HIGH COURT FAMILY DIVISION

Mrs Justice Parker

FD13PO1412

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 1st May 2014

Before :

LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK

LADY JUSTICE BLACK

and

LORD JUSTICE McFARLANE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: KP (A child)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr James Turner QC and Mr Edward Devereux (instructed by Bindmans LLP) for the Appellant

Mr David Williams QC and Mr Mark Jarman (instructed by Creighton & Partners) for the First Respondent

Mr Teertha Gupta QC and Mr Michael Edwards (instructed by Freemans Solicitors) for the Second Respondent

Hearing date: 6th February 2014

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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