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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
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