Family Law Hub

Forum

Latest updates

  • The parents were British and Jordanian nationals, who married in Jordan in 2010 and moved to England in 2011. The mother applied for a declaration that their six-year-old son was habitually resident here, and for an order prohibiting the father from removing the boy from the care of the mother or from this jurisdiction, and from making further applications regarding the child in Jordan. The father argued that the Kingdom of Jordan was the appropriate legal forum for determination of the welfare issues. MacDonald J was wholly satisfied that the child was habitually resident in the jurisdiction of England and Wales, where he had been born and had lived for all but sixteen months. It was therefore the natural and appropriate forum for the welfare issues to be determined. Judgment, 03/01/2020, free
  • The mother applied for a declaration that the child was habitually resident in the jurisdiction of England and Wales, and for orders that would prohibit the father from removing the child from her care or from that jurisdiction, in circumstances where the Sweileh Sharia Court of Jordan had issued a without notice order requiring her to place the child in the father's care immediately. MacDonald J was wholly satisfied that the child was habitually resident in the jurisdiction of England and Wales, and thus the court had jurisdiction in relation to matters of parental responsibility. It was in the child's best interests for the English court to decide the welfare issues between the parents. Judgment, 30/07/2019, free
  • Whether the English courts had jurisdiction under Article 3, Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (Brussels IIa) for a wife to apply for a divorce in England. Judgment, 26/04/2019, free
  • The wife's divorce petition had been stayed on the basis that proceedings had already begun in Italy. On appeal, the question was whether the Italian court was still seised of proceedings. Moylan LJ held that this was for the Italian court to determine, but allowed the wife's appeal to the extent that English proceedings were adjourned, rather than stayed. Baker LJ agreed. Judgment, 26/04/2019, free
  • Contrary to court orders, the father had wrongfully taken his son – a young man of nineteen with profound learning disabilities – to live in the USA. The mother sought an order for his return to the UK. Russell J DBE held that there were grounds for finding that a return to the UK was not in the young man's best interests. The child's future as an adult lay in the USA and these proceedings were to come to an end in recognition of that fact. The appropriate forum for any future litigation was the court in Texas. Judgment, 15/04/2019, free

Latest know-how

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