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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

ABDUCTION: Re M (Abduction) [2007] EWCA Civ 260

Sep 29, 2018, 16:32 PM
Slug : re-m-abduction-2007-ewca-civ-260
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 27, 2007, 06:01 AM
Article ID : 85331

(Court of Appeal; Sir Mark Potter P, Rix and Wilson LJJ; 27 March 2007)

The British mother acknowledged that she had wrongfully removed the child from Serbia, where she and the child had been living separately from the child's Serbian father, but argued that a return would expose the 7 year old child to a grave risk of harm or put her in an intolerable situation, and also raised in defence the child's objections to a return. Although there was credible independent evidence that there had been significant harassment of the mother in Serbia, including several episodes of planting drugs on the mother and arranging police visits to the mother's home, the judge concluded that the defence under Art 13(b) of the Hague Convention (the Convention) had not been made out, and that the child ought to be returned on the basis of undertakings. The CAFCASS officer had reported that the child was a troubled and anxious child who feared for her mother's safety in Serbia, and feared that she would be separated from the mother, but the judge did not address directly the issue of the child's objections.

Allowing the mother's appeal, the President held that the judge had been wrong not to consider the child's objections, which were strong, and exceptional in the sense of the unusual circumstances underlying them, namely a campaign by someone bent upon planting drugs upon the mother in an effort not simply to harass her but to secure her arrest, prosecution and imprisonment. These were unusual and exceptional circumstances and the emergent welfare considerations, when balanced against the Convention considerations, were strongly in favour of a refusal to make an order for return, notwithstanding the fact that the mother had removed the child during concurrent custody proceedings in Serbia. Given the solid foundation for the child's objection to being returned, there was no need to reconsider the judge's rejection of the defence under Art 13(b).

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