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...
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

ABDUCTION/JURISDICTION: Re T & J (Abduction: Recognition of Foreign Judgment) [2006] EWHC 1472 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:05 PM
Slug : re-t-and-j-abduction-recognition-of-foreign-judgment-2006-ewhc-1472-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 20, 2006, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 85731

(Family Division; Sir Mark Potter P; 20 June 2006)

The mother applied to the English court for the return of the two children to Spain under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 (the Hague Convention). The British father had abducted the children from Spain, the country of habitual residence, shortly after the couple separated. Although the mother had been the primary carer when the children were very young, in more recent years the father had taken over that role. Following the abduction, the mother had swiftly brought quasi-criminal proceedings, then matrimonial proceedings against the father in Spain, including issues of custody and return of the children, but had not made an application for return under the Hague Convention. The mother claimed that this was because she was then unaware of the Hague Convention, her lawyers having failed to mention it to her. Pending the divorce, a court in Spain considered the current situation of the children and, in the interests of the children's welfare, made interim orders granting care and custody to the father in England with significant contact to the mother. The Spanish divorce proceedings were now underway, at the conclusion of which final orders would be made. The father relied upon the Spanish order, arguing that the unlawfulness of the original removal had been overtaken by the subsequent Spanish decision that the children should reside in England at present.

If the court of the Member State in which the child was habitually resident had already resolved the issue of the child's residence in favour of the abducting parent by the time of the Hague Convention hearing, then the thrust and purpose of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (Brussels II Revised) operated in favour of an order for non-return. If the children were now returned to Spain under the Hague Convention, the English court would be failing to give effect to the Spanish order. There had been a full and careful hearing of the issue by a Spanish court, which had made a decision based on welfare, in possession of all the relevant facts and fully aware of the full circumstances of the father's removal of the children. If the English court were to order the return of the children to Spain, the father would be able to bring the children back to England immediately, without any breach of the Spanish court order. The Spanish judgment was to be recognised by the English court, under Art 21(4) of Brussels II Revised.

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