Family Law Hub

International

Latest updates

  • The mother appealed against an order for summary return of the child to Israel. Moylan LJ decided that the appeal must be dismissed. He found that there was no retention such that the 1980 Convention applied, but the judge had been entitled to make an order for the child's return under the court's inherent jurisdiction, and had taken into account the identified protective measures. Haddon-Cave LJ and Flaux LJ agreed. Judgment, 21/06/2019, free
  • The father had applied for the return of the children from Ukraine, where they had been kept for ten months. Mostyn J had stayed the application, in anticipation of the Ukrainian court reinstating the father's application there. This did not happen, so the stay was lifted and the application would be heard. Directions were given, but the judge also urged the parties to explore a mediated solution to the case. Judgment, 21/06/2019, free
  • The father had deprived the mother and son of their passports, stranding the child in India without either parent. Having previously declined to make an order for the child's summary return to England, Williams J found that the boy's welfare was now best promoted by being reunited with his mother. He made an interim order for the boy's return, subject to judges in India removing the order that prohibited his removal from that jurisdiction. Judgment, 17/06/2019, free
  • The mother applied for an order requiring the father to return their son from Ghana to England. The father argued that the mother had consented to the move, and that the child would benefit educationally from staying there for two more years. Four of the mother's other children had been removed from her care. MacDonald J found that the father had misrepresented the trip as a summer holiday. There was no evidence that the child's current school provision was equipped to meet his educational needs. The father himself was no longer in Ghana. MacDonald J was satisfied that the court retained jurisdiction, and ordered the child's return, making him a ward of court. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free
  • the HCCH Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (“Child Support Convention”) enters into force for Kazakhstan, following the deposit of its instrument of accession on 6 June 2017. News, 14/06/2019, free

Latest know-how

  • In a tweet: Successful application by a father (“F”) for return of the child to a state other than the one in which the family had been habitually resident when the wrongful removal occurred. Case note, 08/07/2019, members only
  • In brief: A successful application for recognition of an adoption order made in the Philippines in 2006 in which the judge found that the four pre-requisites to recognition of adoption in common law, as set out in Re N (Recognition of a Foreign Adoption) [2016] EWHC 3085, had been met. The Secretary of State for the Home Department was joined as an interested party because the outcome of the decision impacted the family’s prospects of applying to live in the UK. Case note, 08/07/2019, members only
  • In brief: The mother’s (“M”) application for a summary return of the parties’ son to the Republic of Sudan (a non-Hague Convention country) was allowed by the judge. The judgment is helpful in distilling the legal principles applicable in the context of a non-Convention application, as well as summarising neatly the key considerations to be assessed and weighed in determining a child’s habitual residence. Case note, 08/07/2019, members only
  • In a tweet: Successful application made under the Hague Child Abduction Convention despite a delay where mother (“M”) had been unaware of the Convention prior to her application. Case note, 08/07/2019, members only
  • In a tweet: Does breach of the lis pendens rule mean that a judgment cannot be recognised? Case note, 04/07/2019, members only

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