Family Law Hub

De L v H [2009] EWHC 3074

Judgment, published: 30/12/2010

Items referring to this

  • F's appeal against a decision by the judge which refused his application for a return of his 3 children, whom M had wrongfully removed to England, back to Norway. The 2 older children had been involved in an assault by F on M some years earlier which caused them to object to a return. In Thorpe LJ's last judgment before retirement he described the case as exceptional because the traumatic incident had affected them all, not only the relationship between husband and wife but the relationship between father and two children. So despite the fact that there had been no repetition, despite the fact that there were undoubtedly protective measures available, the gravity of the event and its consequences were plainly open to the judge as a sufficient foundation for her conclusion. Judgment, 21/10/2013, free
  • Application by mother, resident in Mexico, for return of her 15 year old daughter under the Hague Convention. Cobb J concludes that the child objected, and was of an age and maturity where he should take account of her views, but nevertheless uses his discretion to order her return. Judgment, 09/09/2014, free
  • An application under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 concerning a child whose mother, who lived in Australia, was seeking an order for his return to Australia so that his future could be decided there. Judgment, 24/07/2013, free
  • Refusal of F's application for summary return of child wrongfully removed from the USA by M on the bases of i) the child's objections and ii) he had attained an age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate for the court to take account of his views. Judgment, 22/04/2013, free
  • Here there was no dispute that the mother (“M”) had failed to return the child to Lithuania and that this had been in breach of the father’s (“F”) rights of custody. She argued that the child objected to being returned to Lithuania and that, at nearly 11 years old, the child was of sufficient maturity to have her views taken into account. M also pleaded the defence that there was a grave risk that the child would be exposed to physical or psychological harm if she were returned. CAFCASS reported that the child had a very strong wish to stay in the UK. At first instance, the second defence had been quickly dismissed. However, it was found that the child’s objections amounted to objections in Hague terms and F’s application for a return order was refused. The Court of Appeal dismissed F’s appeal, finding that there had been sufficient foundation for the decision reached at first instance. Judgment, 21/10/2014, 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
  • Case note, 15/08/2013, members only

Published: 30/12/2010

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