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
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
View all articles
Authors

JURISDICTION: Whyte v Whyte [2005] EWCA Civ 858

Sep 29, 2018, 17:21 PM
Slug : whyte-v-whyte-2005-ewca-civ-858
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 21, 2005, 05:36 AM
Article ID : 86043

(Court of Appeal; Buxton, Neuberger and Thorpe LJJ; 21 July 2005) [2006] 1 FLR 400

The parents of a child were divorced in Texas. The mother took the child to Russia, a non-Hague Convention country contrary to an express provision that neither parent was to take the child to a non-Hague Convention country. Court proceedings in Russia resulted in the mother being awarded custody. The father later seized the child and brought proceedings against the mother under the Texas Family Code, chapter 42 rather than the penal provisions of the decree. A final order in favour of the father was made awarding him costs against the mother. The judge at first instance in the UK held that it had no jurisdiction to try a claim for enforcement of a judgment of a Texas court in this country. The Court of Appeal allowed the father's appeal. The courts of this country had jurisdiction to entertain a claim against the mother based on the chapter 42 decree of the Texas Family Court. That the father chose to proceed under chapter 42 rather than the more limited recourse provided by the divorce decree did not affect the mothers original submission to the penalties of the Texan court. Chapter 42 was part of the Texas Family Code and was an inherent part of the protection for families whose affairs were regulated by the court. It was impossible to say that she had not submitted to that regime when she submitted to the divorce decree that it enforced.

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