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
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
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