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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
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...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

ABDUCTION: W v W [2009] EWHC 3288 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:15 PM
Slug : w-v-w-2009-ewhc-3288-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 10, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87697

(Family Division; Baker J; 10 December 2009)

The family lived in Australia. According to the mother and the eldest child, aged 17, the father was regularly abusive and occasionally violent throughout the marriage. Shortly before the Australian court was due to consider granting the mother a violence restraining order, the mother removed the 11-year-old from Australia and, with the eldest child, travelled to England. The father sought the summary return of the 11-year old to Australia. The 17-year-old sibling applied to be joined as a party to the proceedings, on the basis that she was extremely concerned as to the welfare of both the child and the mother, who was said to be unable to protect the child from the father's violence. The 17-year-old argued not only that the court had a discretionary power to join her, as a child, if it were in her best interests, but also that she was a mandatory defendant to the application under Family Proceedings Rules, r 6.5(e), which provided that defendants to an application should include 'any other person who appears to the court to have a sufficient interest in the welfare of the child'.

The President's obiter dicta in S v B (Abduction: Human Rights) [2005] EWHCC 773 (Fam) [2005] 2 FLR 878 provided a strongly persuasive authority as to the interpretation of Family Proceedings Rules r 6.5(e). In order to be entitled as of right to be joined as a mandatory defendant under r 6.5(e), an applicant must therefore establish that he or she was directly concerned with the welfare of the subject child in the sense that he or she had (i) provided care for the child and/or (ii) had a continuing or potential interest in the provision of care for the child, or (iii) had some legal or practical responsibility for the child's welfare. The President's definition was capable of encompassing everyone or nearly everyone likely to be able to demonstrate an interest in the welfare of the child sufficient to be heard on the question whether to order a return of the child to the country from which he had allegedly been wrongfully removed. The rule defining the categories of persons to be joined as defendants to Hague applications was expressed in mandatory terms; the court did not have a discretion not to join as a defendant a person who could demonstrate that they came within r 6.5(e). The 17-year-old certainly fell within r 6.5(e) in the sense that she had a continuing and potential interest in the provision of the child's care and had some practical, albeit not legal, responsibility for his welfare.

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