Family Law Hub

Re J (A Child: Custody Rights Jurisdiction) [2005] UKHL 40

Judgment, published: 16/06/2005

Items referring to this

  • Father's application seeking the summary return of his son to Bermuda after the mother had taken the child on holiday to England but not returned. An order was made for the child's return, the main factor which tipped the balance in favour of such a course being the adverse impact on the child's relationship with his father if he did not return to Bermuda. Judgment, 05/03/2014, free
  • Application by father to relocate a child to Algeria and to stay proceedings in England under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. Application refused. Judgment, 22/10/2015, free
  • Judgment, 30/01/2013, free
  • Application for summary return of the child to Saudi Arabia, where he was habitually resident before being taken to the UK by his mother. No order for return was made because the child would be separated from his mother, the mother refusing to return to Saudi Arabia. Judgment, 30/11/2015, free
  • In a tweet: Repudiatory retention is possible in 1980 Hague Convention proceedings Case note, 11/04/2018, members only
  • Applicant mother was seeking the return of the 2 children from Madagascar where they were living with the father after being wrongfully removed from the UK. A return order was made. Judgment, 10/05/2017, free
  • An order for the summary return of the 6 year old child to Cyprus was made following an application by the father after the mother removed him to the UK ostensibly for a two week holiday. Judgment, 17/02/2017, free
  • Both parties were seeking a residence order in respect of their son. They had lived in Qatar with their two children when the M left the F alleging domestic violence. F then took their son to Egypt without M's permission and then on to the UK. The courts in Qatar ruled that both children should reside with M but F had not complied. After a review of the welfare checklist, the court decided that the child should reside with M in Qatar. Judgment, 28/01/2014, 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
  • Appeal by mother against order to return child to Morocco and involving consideration of the 1996 Hague Convention (only the 2nd CoA judgment to do so). Appeal allowed as the judge did not have jurisdiction to make the order under Article 11. Judgment, 15/04/2015, free
  • The judge in the High Court found that the father had not consented to the removal of the child from Morocco, which was wrongful, and that he had been habitually resident in Morocco before his removal. He ordered the mother to return the child to Morocco. The mother appealed to the Court of Appeal, which held that the English courts did not have jurisdiction under the 1996 Convention, or on any other basis, on the facts of this case. In cases where a child was habitually resident in another state, as in this case, jurisdiction only arose in cases of urgency under article 11. This was not such a case because the father could have made an immediate application to the Moroccan court for a return order. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal against this ruling, holding that it was open to the English courts to exercise the article 11 jurisdiction in cases of wrongful removal under the 1996 Convention, and it ordered that the case be returned to the High Court for a decision as to whether it was appropriate to do so in the circumstances of this case. Judgment, 25/11/2015, free
  • Judgment concerning return of a child to the US where the mother had successfully obtained a ruling in Texas that the child had been wrongfully retained in the US, the father had complied with that order and then had appeals turned down by the High Court and Court of Appeal. Father's appeal allowed. Judgment, 04/12/2013, free
  • Father was seeking a stay of English wardship proceedings on the basis that Singapore was clearly the more appropriate forum in which to resolve proceedings relating to the future care of his son. The judge ruled that proceedings should continue in the UK saying: "Of principal and magnetic importance in my judgment is the presence of [the child's] parents in this jurisdiction; the fact that each is likely to remain resident in this jurisdiction for at least the next few months; and the significant issue of the mother's ability to re-enter Singapore and conduct proceedings in that jurisdiction in circumstances where she has neither immigration clearance nor the means to support her travel to and from that jurisdiction, nor legal representation in the Singapore courts." Judgment, 27/07/2015, free
  • Parents and two children, S and M, lived in Australia. After the marriage broke down, parents agreed to live in the US. Mother took S to the US, father took M for a holiday in Thailand, then went to the UK with her. He then refused to move to the US with M, saying that if there was an order made under the Hague Convention, that she should return to Australia with him. The court ruled that it would be utterly absurd and wholly contrary to the interests of M for the court to direct that she be returned to Australia, where there were no family members or family home, where the father would have no employment and, most importantly, the mother and S would not be there. The court was in no doubt that the Convention, properly interpreted, enabled them to order that M should be returned to the US. Judgment, 11/10/2013, free
  • Father's appeal against the dismissal of his application that the child should return to Kent from the North East. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 21/10/2016, free
  • In brief: An unsuccessful application brought by a father (“F”) for the summary return to the Ivory Coast of his two young children. The mother (“M”) had removed the children to England four months earlier. Despite finding that the children’s habitual residence was the Ivory Coast, the court determined it was not in the children’s best interests to be returned in circumstances which may well have led to a further move for the children in due course. Judgment, 05/07/2018, 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
  • Appeal by the father against the decision to make a child arrangements order in favour of the mother in respect of their son. Judgment, 27/05/2016, free
  • Application by M for summary return of child to UAE. Application allowed as, broadly, "this is indeed one of those cases where the connection with the UAE of the child, his parents and his paternal as well as maternal grandparents is so strong and so long established that any differences between our own and the legal system there should carry little weight." Judgment, 13/02/2015, free
  • Judgment, 16/09/2011, free
  • Judgment, 19/03/2013, free
  • Application by mother for return of a child to Pakistan under the UK- Pakistan Judicial Protocol on Children Matters of January 2003. Application granted. Judgment, 04/05/2017, free

Published: 16/06/2005

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