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...
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles

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 :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from