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
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...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
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