Latest articles
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...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

ABDUCTION: Re L (Abduction: Consent)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:37 PM
Slug : re-l-abduction-consent
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 4, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88895

(Family Division; Bodey J; 4 September 2007)

There was no reason in principle why consent to removal of children from the jurisdiction should not be valid if tied to some future event, even of uncertain timing, provided that the happening of the future event was reasonably ascertainable; it must not be too vague, uncertain or subjective. However, if the consent had been given at a time when the facts were wholly and manifestly different from those prevailing at the time of removal, or given so long before the removal that the consent must have lapsed, or if the consent had been withdrawn before the removal, then the defence of consent would not have been made out. In the instant case, after the consent to a permanent relocation had been given but before the mother had left with the children there had been further discussions of the proposed departure in the context of a holiday; return tickets had been purchased. The notion of a holiday was consistent only with a return to the former home, and the consent to a holiday had replaced or modified the more generous relocation permission given previously.

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