Family Law Hub

Re D (a child) [2006] UKHL 51

Judgment, published: 26/08/2006

Items referring to this

  • The judge ordered that the child who lived with his mother in Australia should live in the UK with his British father and brother. Judgment, 20/10/2017, free
  • Appeal against a decision that the three children should be returned to Hungary despite the 2 older children objecting. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 11/06/2016, free
  • In a tweet: Proper adherence to Re W will see more children giving evidence Case note, 20/09/2016, members only
  • A contact case in which no order for direct contact was made between the child and F, despite F being "an unimpeachable father who has been consistently prevented from enjoying contact with his daughter by an implacably hostile mother". The previous systemic failure ended in a hearing which itself was highly unsatisfactory and where the judge had failed to conduct a sufficiently thorough analysis, such that it made it almost inevitable that the court ordered a full rehearing. Judgment, 09/09/2013, free
  • Judgment, 24/08/2012, members only
  • Application by mother, resident in Mexico, for return of her 15 year old daughter under the Hague Convention. Cobb J concludes that the child objected, and was of an age and maturity where he should take account of her views, but nevertheless uses his discretion to order her return. Judgment, 09/09/2014, free
  • Application by father for summary return of child to France and involving issues of settlement. Application granted as none of the defences under the 1980 Hague Convention were satisfied. Judgment, 17/07/2015, free
  • A suspended return order, ordering the child to be returned to Poland, was made after the mothers defence provided by Art 13(b) of the Convention was rejected. The return order was suspended for 10 weeks because the father had been deported from Poland and there was no clear indication as to whether he would be able to return - this would permit the mother to make an application in the Polish court on notice to the father for interim permission to remove the child from Poland to the UK. Judgment, 14/10/2016, free
  • Judgment in long running Hague Convention case concerning whether one of the children involved, now 16, should be a party to the mother's committal proceedings resulting from alleged failure to return the children to Spain. Judgment, 31/03/2014, free
  • Child aged 15 was joined as a party to proceedings in which mother was seeking a summary return to the US as she claimed that he had been wrongfully retained in the UK by his father. Judgment, 22/03/2016, free
  • Father's appeal against a UK decision that allowed an appeal by the child's mother against the recognition and enforcement of an order made by the Romanian Court of Appeal in Bucharest. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 27/01/2016, free
  • Hague proceedings were withdrawn after the parties were able to agree the terms of a consent order, such that there was no utility in continuing with the Hague proceedings. Judgment, 10/03/2016, free
  • Mother's application under the Hague Child Abduction Convention and Brussels II Revised for the summary return to France of three children. A return order was made. Judgment, 17/02/2016, free
  • In a tweet: Take child's refugee status into account when considering return order to non-Hague Convention country. In brief: The court emphasised that if a child has been granted asylum by the time a return order application within wardship proceedings is heard, the court must give proper consideration to this, even if it is not an absolute bar to a return order being made. Also as the child is a ward of the court, the judge has a duty to ensure that any proposed consent order is in their best interests. Judgment, 12/10/2016, free
  • Application by father under the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980 for the return to Ukraine of his son. The child's summary return to Ukraine was ordered. Judgment, 21/11/2015, free
  • Mother's appeal against decision to return child to Malta where the High Court judge had met with the child in court and it was submitted that her decision had been improperly influenced by what was gleaned at the meeting. Appeal allowed Judgment, 02/05/2014, free
  • Father's application under the 1980 Hague Convention seeking summary return of his son to the USA succeeded. Judgment, 20/07/2018, free
  • The mother's argument, that a summary return of the child to Bulgaria would expose him to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm, or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation, was rejected. The child did object to returning to Bulgaria, but despite this the court concluded that he should be returned; accordingly the father's application for summary return under the Hague Convention succeeded. Judgment, 16/11/2015, free
  • Appeal against the Court of Appeal's ruling that 4 children, whose mother had taken them to her home country of Spain, had become habitually resident in Spain from that date. Despite the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the older child T should not be the subject of an order for return to Spain, the reversal of the judge’s ascription to them of a habitual residence in Spain on 5 January 2013 was necessary, for that would preclude any order of the Spanish court under article 11(8) of B2R. There was a subsidiary appeal against the refusal to allow T to be a party to proceedings. The Supreme Court allowed both grounds of appeal and reluctantly remitted the matter back to the High Court to decide whether any or all of the four children were habitually resident in Spain on 5 January 2013. If it turns out that any or all of the three boys were, it will also have to be decided whether to return them to Spain when their older sister, T, or any of their brothers, is not to return will place them in an intolerable situation. Judgment, 21/01/2014, free
  • Father's application for a summary return of the children to the jurisdiction of Romania. Application granted. Judgment, 03/10/2017, free
  • Mother's appeal against orders whereby the order of the Bucharest Court of Appeal for her to return her son to the father who lived in Romania was recognised and registered for enforcement in England. Her appeal was allowed on the grounds that: 1) in the case of both orders, recognition must be refused under BIIR Article 23(b), (c) and (d); and 2) one order must be quashed for fundamental procedural defects. Judgment, 01/08/2014, free
  • In brief: A summary return order was made returning the child to Israel in circumstances where the mother (“M”) had not made out that the child would be at grave risk of psychological harm if returned and appropriate undertakings were given by the father (“F”) meaning that the child would remain in M’s care until the Family Court of Jerusalem had dealt with matters. Judgment, 14/06/2018, free
  • These proceedings concerned the father's application for the return of the child to Lithuania pursuant to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980. Judgment, 29/09/2017, free
  • Appeal by mother against order for summary return of child to Russia and involving consideration and guidance from Ryder LJ on hearing the views of the child. Order set aside (reluctantly) and remitted for hearing before a different High Court judge. Judgment, 04/12/2014, free
  • Father's application for the return of his daughter to France after she was wrongfully removed by the mother to England. The application was granted. Judgment, 27/05/2016, free
  • Father's application for return of his child to Malta under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. Mostyn J dismisses the application and also sets out a useful review of the principles involved. Judgment, 27/11/2014, free
  • The court determined that the child should not be returned to El Salvador after the mother wrongfully removed him to the UK, the mother's defence that the child had now settled in the UK for the purposes of Art.12(2) being made out. Judgment, 03/04/2017, free
  • Proceedings brought by mother under the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980 seeking the return of her son, who had lived most of his life in France, to the jurisdiction of France. The judge exercised his discretion by refusing to order the return on the grounds of the child's objections. Judgment, 11/09/2015, free
  • Mother's appeal against an order which stated that the children must be returned to the USA, if necessary without her if she could not obtain a visa. The appeal was allowed and that part of the order was discharged. However, the order still stated that, provided a visa was granted to the mother, the children would return. Judgment, 03/04/2018, free
  • In a tweet: Order requiring children to return to America without primary carer places them in an intolerable situation Case note, 15/05/2018, members only
  • In these proceedings for summary return under the Hague Convention and Brussels IIR, two issues arise. First, did the father consent to or acquiesce in the child's removal from his home state? Second, would a return expose the child to grave risk of psychological harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable position? Judgment, 26/11/2015, free
  • Judgment, 18/11/2012, free
  • Judgment following a hearing to determine whether or not the court should exercise jurisdiction under the Children Act 1989 in respect of an application by the mother for retrospective leave to remove the children temporarily to Spain and also for permission to relocate the children permanently in Spain. Judgment, 06/10/2016, free
  • Father's application for the summary return of the children to the USA pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The application was allowed and a return order was made. Judgment, 05/02/2018, free

Published: 26/08/2006


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item