Family Law Hub

International

Latest updates

  • The father appealed against an order for the two children to be returned to Russia. Moylan LJ, Peter Jackson LJ and Arnold LJ decided that both the father's appeal regarding habitual residence and the mother's cross-appeal regarding repudiatory retention would be dismissed, but that the judge's order made under the inherent jurisdiction would be set aside. When the 1996 Hague Convention applied, recourse could only be had to the inherent jurisdiction if permitted by the code established by the Convention. Here, there was no gap in the scheme of the Convention to justify exercising the court's inherent powers. The right course was for the mother's application for enforcement of the Russian court's order to be determined as soon as possible. Judgment, 03/12/2019, free
  • The father applied for permission to appeal and for a stay with regards to an interim Child Arrangements Order made in order to permit the mother to take the child on a European holiday. Theis J found that there were grounds for permission to appeal, as a live with order made had not been not before the court as an issue to be determined. But there was minimal risk of the child not returning to this jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction which they were visiting had effective procedures in place that would swiftly ensure the child's return if required, which Theis J considered unlikely. Judgment, 02/12/2019, free
  • The father applied for the summary return of the daughter to Malta, pursuant to the Hague Convention 1980. The defence raised by the mother was that the child was not habitually resident there. The child was 21 months old and had lived initially and mostly in England, but had also spent time in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Italy, Malta and France. None of the contemporaneous correspondence between the parents illustrated a desire on the part of the father for the daughter to return to Malta, held Mr Teertha Gupta QC, sitting as a High Court judge. The child's habitual residence was always in England because she moved too often to be integrated anywhere else. Any proceedings concerning her would need to be in the Family Court in England. Judgment, 02/12/2019, free
  • The mother applied to commit the father for contempt of court. They had met, married and lived in England. In 2018 they had travelled to Saudi Arabia, where the father had said they would thereafter remain. During a trip to Pakistan for a wedding, the mother had made arrangements to return to England, but had been prevented from bringing one of their two children. She commenced proceedings here on the basis that the child remained habitually resident in England and Wales, and the father was ordered to bring her back. He did not. Holman J was satisfied that the father had been fully engaged in the proceedings, and that he was fully aware of the precise terms of the order. He was now deliberately in contempt of court. However, the mother's wish was to have her daughter returned, not for the father to be imprisoned, and Holman J adjourned the question of sanction and sentence to a date not less than six weeks after the hearing, with no sentence to be served if the father did return the child. Judgment, 30/11/2019, free
  • The father applied for the summary return of two young girls to the USA. Mr Robert Peel QC had to make a determination as to whether the Hague Convention was engaged and, if so, whether there were statutory exceptions to the principle that the children should be returned to the country of habitual residence for decisions as to their future to be made. He found that the father had not consented to any permanent removal of the children to this jurisdiction. He also found that the pattern of domestic violence and abuse was not such that the Article 13(b) threshold was crossed, nor did the question marks about the mother's immigration status in the United States establish an Article 13(b) defence. Mr Robert Peel QC proposed to make an order for return on the basis of the protective measures he outlined. Judgment, 29/11/2019, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

Latest sources

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