Family Law Hub

International

Latest updates

  • The father applied under the Child Abduction Custody Act 1985 for the summary return of the daughter to Italy pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention. The mother had removed her to England in February 2021. The mother accepted that the child's views on return were ambivalent. Her defence thus focused on the issues of consent/acquiescence under Article 13(a) and grave risk/intolerability under Article 13(b). She claimed that moving to England had been the father's suggestion, to lessen the child's exposure to racist abuse. The father said that he had not agreed to a relocation in the months and days leading up to the trip to England in July 2020, and that even if he had it did not subsist many months later. Mr Teertha Gupta QC queried why the mother had left in a clandestine fashion, if the father had consented to the move. For that and several other reasons he came to the firm conclusion that the consent defence had simply not been made out. Similarly, the defence under Article 13(b) had not been made out. He found it highly unlikely that the mother would be separated from the daughter if she chose to go with her. Thus he ordered the summary return of the child to Italy. Judgment, 25/10/2021, free
  • The Latvian father made a Hague Convention 1980 application for the summary return of the two children, aged 14 and 12. The mother alleged that the father had orally agreed to the children remaining in England after she brought them there. The mother's defences were settlement under Article 12; children's objections under Article 13; consent and acquiescence under Article 13(a); and grave risk of harm and intolerability under Article 13(b). She succeeded on the first two and thus it was not necessary for the third and fourth to be considered. In Mostyn J's judgment, the physical and mental constituents of the concept of settlement had been very amply proved in this case, and the children's objections to a return were rational, reasonable and logical. He exercised the discretion granted to him under articles 12 and 13 of the Convention against a return of the children to Latvia. He commented that "many of these outward return cases under the Hague 1980 Convention have become disproportionately complex, lengthy and expensive". He urged the court to strictly apply paragraph 3.8 of the Practice Guidance: Case Management and Mediation of International Child Abduction Proceedings (issued by Sir James Munby P on 13 March 2018), and allow oral evidence only where it was "demanded" to resolve the case justly, not "merely reasonable or desirable". As to an ex parte location order made by the father, it was Mostyn J's view that "the time has surely come to insist that the standards in the Practice Guidance concerning ex parte applications are scrupulously observed", which they had not been in this case. Judgment, 25/10/2021, free
  • The father had brought the four-year-old daughter from Georgia to England in July 2020, without notice to the mother, who now applied for the child's summary return. The remaining issues were: (1) whether the court was bound by the decisions of the Georgian courts; (2) if not, whether the child had been habitually resident in Georgia when removed by her father in 2020; and (3) what, if any, protective measures should be put in place. It was plain, said Sir Jonathan Cohen, that the court in Georgia had not ruled on the question which he was asked to determine, and thus he was not bound by their decisions. He found that on the relevant date the child had been habitually resident in Georgia, and thus he would order her return. Discussion between the parents would need to take place before a further hearing, at which he would determine the remaining practical issues. Judgment, 15/10/2021, free
  • The father applied pursuant to the Hague Convention 1980 for the return of the three children (aged 5, 3 and 2) to Sweden, where they were habitually resident and had lived with the mother. The parents had shared joint custody, but the mother had removed them, without proper notification, to England, then Iraq, then back to England. The mother alleged domestic abuse during their marriage, and that the father and his family had previously abducted two of the children from her. She was described as having an abject fear of returning to Sweden, and the oldest son was said to share that fear. In Holman J's view, there was no doubt that she had abducted the children within the meaning and objects of the Hague Convention. If the father's alleged abduction of the children had been the trigger for removing the children, the circumstances and context of the case might have appeared markedly different, but following that incident she had been able to live with the children in Sweden for two years without molestation or interference from the father. None of her allegations came close to establishing an Article 13(b) defence. He ordered their return to Sweden forthwith, subject to various undertakings offered by the father. Judgment, 14/10/2021, free
  • The father applied for the summary return of the daughter to a country in which he did not live, and which was not a signatory to the Hague Convention. The application would thus be determined according to the best interests of the child, who wished to remain in London. Both parents had left extremely unpleasant messages on the daughter's mobile phone, neither parent thought twice about disparaging the other in front of the daughter, and each went out of their way to seek to persuade her that the other parent was untrustworthy. In Poole J's view, the damaging effects of their conduct was plain to see. The father's contempt for the mother infected every aspect of his case, and he was often inconsistent in his evidence. The daughter was undoubtedly now habitually resident in England, and her wish to remain was absolutely clear. In Poole J's judgment, it would have taken exceptional countervailing factors to persuade the court that it was in her best interests to be returned against her will, and in fact the balance of other factors, having regard to the welfare checklist under s 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, also weighed in favour of not making such an order. The father's application was dismissed. Judgment, 13/10/2021, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

Latest sources

Copyright 

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.

Disclaimer

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