Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
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