Family Law Hub

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985

Statute, published: 30/12/2005

Items referring to this

  • Appeals against (1) a collection order made in relation to the child at a hearing without notice to the father and (2) an order requiring the return of the child to Sweden the following day "unless … a court in Sweden makes an order that the child can remain in the ... father's care until the conclusion of the case". The first appeal was dismissed but the second appeal was allowed, the court saying that although the judge was rightly concerned to act quickly in the interests of the child, there was no reason in the present case to abandon the Hague Convention proceedings in favour of Article 20 of BIIA. Judgment, 23/06/2016, free
  • A return order was made such that the child, who had been abducted from Spain to live in the UK, was returned to Spain to live with his father. Judgment, 07/11/2018, free
  • This case concerned the habitual residence of two children who were born and raised in France. The mother moved to Scotland with the children with the agreement of the father, who remained in France. The intention was that the mother and children would stay in Scotland for about a year. The relationship broke down while she was still in Scotland. The issue at stake was whether the children were habitually resident in Scotland (as contended by the mother) or France (as contended by the father). The Outer House of the Court of Session concluded that the children were still habitually resident in France. The Inner House reversed that decision and ruled that they were habitually resident in Scotland. The father appealed. The important consideration for the Supreme Court was whether the residence had the necessary quality of stability, not whether it was necessarily intended to be permanent. They ruled that the children were habitually resident in Scotland. Judgment, 22/05/2015, free
  • Case note, 08/01/2013, 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, 10/02/2013, free
  • Father's application to return child to Switzerland, following alleged wrongful abduction. Dismissed on grounds that the child was habitually resident in the UK. Judgment, 15/02/2018, 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
  • 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
  • Case note, 15/08/2013, members only
  • Appeal against LCG v RL [2013] EWHC 1383 (Fam) decision. Case note, 27/09/2013, members only
  • In brief: Following the making of an order returning the child to Spain from England, the mother’s (“M”) mental health rapidly deteriorated. She successfully applied to the High Court to have the order set aside and a re-hearing listed following a psychiatric assessment. The Court of Appeal upheld the set aside, concluding that the High Court has the power under the inherent jurisdiction to review and set aside 1980 Hague Convention final orders. The power can be used where there has been a fundamental change of circumstances which undermines the basis on which the original order was made. Here the original return order had been made where the court found that M had not made out her Article 13(b) defence which included M’s claims that there were grave risks to her mental health. Judgment, 16/08/2018, free

Published: 30/12/2005


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