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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

ABDUCTION: S v B (Abduction: Human Rights) [2005] EWHC 733 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:16 PM
Slug : s-v-b-abduction-human-rights-2005-ewhc-733-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 4, 2005, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 87845

(4 May 2005; Sir Mark Potter P; Family Division) [2005] 2 FLR 878

The father sought the return of the child to the country of habitual residence, New Zealand. The mother opposed the return, and was supported by an older child, the child's half-sibling, who did not wish to return and who argued that his right under Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights 1950 to respect for his family life would be interfered with by an order requiring the mother and child to return to New Zealand. In considering a Hague application for the return of a child to the country of habitual residence, the court had to have regard to the right to a family life of any sibling not the subject of the application. However, ordering the return of the child, the court concluded that although the return would interfere with the rights of the sibling to some extent, it would be for 'the protection of the rights and freedoms of others' namely the child herself and her father.

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