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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
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