Family Law Hub

Mercredi v Chaffe (Case C/497/10), [2011] 1 FLR 1293

Judgment, published: 02/07/2011

Items referring to this

  • Mother's application for the summary return under the Hague Convention of a child to Germany. In this unusual case, the father maintained that the child had been conceived with the intention that the child would live with him and his wife in England, not with the mother in Germany. The judge ruled that the child was habitually resident in England. Judgment, 11/06/2015, free
  • Proceedings brought by the applicant father in respect of his daughter for summary return to Italy pursuant to the provisions of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. It was his case that the child was habitually resident in Italy at the time of her removal from Hungary to the United Kingdom. Judgment, 16/06/2015, free
  • Judgment, 08/08/2012, free
  • Case note, 31/08/2012, 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
  • The father was seeking a child arrangements order, a prohibited steps order and a specific issue order. He subsequently issued an application for a return order. The purpose of this hearing was to determine a preliminary issue concerning the jurisdiction of the English court to adjudicate upon the father's applications, that issue hinging on the court's determination of whether the child was habitually resident in England. Judgment, 14/07/2016, free
  • The issue for consideration in this appeal are what remedies are available to the parent whose child is removed from the country of habitual residence pursuant to a return order made on a successful application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention which is subsequently set aside by an appellate court. Judgment, 24/07/2013, free
  • The court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear an application under the Children Act 1989 in respect of two children. The father, the applicant, contended that the court had jurisdiction on one of two grounds: (1) that at the date on which proceedings were started the children were habitually resident in England and Wales and that, as a result, this court had jurisdiction under Article 8 of BIIA, or alternatively (2) that the children were wrongfully removed from England and Wales to Latvia at a point when they were habitually resident here, that the father had neither consented to nor acquiesced in their removal, and that as a result this court had jurisdiction under Article 10 of BIIA. Judgment, 08/02/2017, free
  • In a factually complicated case, in which the mother (“M”) effectively only gave written submissions, Mostyn J concluded that while it would lead to inconsistent judgments in England and Poland, he should order the children be returned here Judgment, 19/01/2018, free
  • Appeal concerning right to remove and parental responsibility Case note, 15/04/2013, 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
  • Case note, 24/08/2012, members only
  • Judgment, 26/08/2012, free
  • In the words of Mr Justice Peter Jackson, this is "another example of the painful legal confusion that can arise when children are born as a result of unregulated artificial conception". The present applications arose from a same-sex relationship between Ms L and Ms C. Ms C gave birth to a child after artificial insemination and soon afterwards took the child to Ireland after their relationship broke down. Ms L had not seen the child since and was applying for a residence and contact order, and for declarations that at the point of the child's departure from England, Ms L was acting as her 'psychological parent'. It was held first that the court had no jurisdiction in relation to matters of parental responsibility concerning the child. Secondly, the court made a declaration that, at the date of the child's removal from England, family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights existed between the child and Ms L Judgment, 06/05/2014, 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
  • The 4 children and M were Spanish nationals, F was English. M took the children back to Spain. After a few months they came back to the UK with F who did not return them to Spain. An order was made for their return which was resisted especially by the older child. The order in her case was overturned but the case of the other 3 children was remitted to the High Court. Discussion of the joinder of the children as parties. Judgment, 03/10/2013, free
  • A case involving the determination of habitual residence of a 15 year old girl, who was Romanian by birth, had lived most of her life in Spain, but was then brought to the UK early in 2013 by a man who had been 'sold' the girl by her mother. Mr Justice Cobb concluded that she was habitually resident in the UK - the fact that the girl's life was in many respects unconventional, occasionally lawless and generally unstructured did not mean that she had not in her own way – and to a significant degree – integrated into that society in which she lived in England. Judgment, 16/10/2014, free
  • Judgment concerning habitual residence of a child involving a mother in the UK and a father in Singapore, where the father claimed the mother's consent in removing the child. The judge found that the child had not acquired habitual residence in Singapore and ordered return with a penal notice attached. Judgment, 03/04/2014, free
  • Judgment, 11/04/2013, free
  • Judgment, 02/07/2012, free
  • Judgment, 04/12/2012, free
  • Judgment, 04/12/2012, free
  • Judgment, 25/03/2013, free
  • The child was the subject of proceedings in England and Spain. The English court had declared that she was habitually resident in the UK and made other consequential directions. The Spanish court had refused to return her to this jurisdiction pursuant to the Hague Convention. M's application was to set aside declarations made by the English Court as to (i) habitual residence (ii) wrongful retention. Alternatively she invited the court to reassess habitual residence as at today's date. Judgment, 10/03/2014, free
  • Habitual residence under Article 15 of Brussels II Revised Case note, 15/04/2013, free
  • Judgment, 19/03/2013, free
  • Judgment, 29/10/2012, free

Published: 02/07/2011

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