Latest updates
- The seven-year-old boy had dual Dutch and French nationality, and was agreed to be habitually resident in England and Wales with his mother. The French father, living in a non-Hague Convention country, sought a detailed order regulating his time with his son, and giving him permission to take the boy out of England and Wales on trips, including to his present country of residence. The mother had not engaged with proceedings or the father's solicitors, citing illness. HHJ Corbett, sitting as a s 9(1) deputy judge of the High Court, found that the mother had ignored the court proceedings, hoping that they would go away, but he had heard from her in detail and at length at the hearing. He was satisfied that each parent had had a fair trial in accordance with Article 6, and that the orders he would make were necessary and proportionate interferences with their Article 8 rights. He decided upon the dates which the son would spend with the father. As to international travel, there was in his judgment no risk of abduction, but the father would be directed to lodge a bond with his solicitors, to be paid to the mother if necessary to fund her legal costs of securing a return. The mother was ordered to respond to reasonable requests from the father regarding the son within 48 hours, and to give him 14 days' notice of any overseas travel plans. Judgment, 28/11/2020, free
- The mother was a Bulgarian national with indefinite leave to remain, and was currently in Bulgaria with the two-year-old daughter. She was prevented from bringing the daughter back to England by an order of the Bulgarian court. The father had dual Bulgarian and British nationality and was in London. The central issue before the court, in what was described as "somewhat chaotic litigation", was whether a passport order should be discharged, but the court also considered the mother's application for committal of the father, and the issue of whether the English court or the Bulgarian court had jurisdiction regarding the daughter. Cobb J directed that the father's British passport should be returned to him forthwith. The father was directed to execute all necessary documents and travel consents to ensure that the mother was forthwith able to return the daughter to the jurisdiction of England and Wales. The committal order was dismissed; in Cobb J's view it was destined to fail. The case would be listed for further directions on the issue of habitual residence and jurisdiction once the International Family Justice Office had indicated whether it was able to establish the status of the proceedings in the Bulgarian courts. Judgment, 11/11/2020, free
- The three-year-old daughter was a British citizen who had lived with the maternal grandmother in India since 2018, after the mother returned to England without her. The father had applied for summary return under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The mother had applied for a specific issue order for "permission to change jurisdiction of the child", which Mostyn J took to be an application for a declaration that the child was habitually resident in India. A preliminary issue arose regarding whether the court had jurisdiction in the case. Mostyn J found as a fact that the daughter was now habitually resident in India and thus there was no jurisdiction in this case under Brussels II article 8. He also found as a fact that at no time up to 26 August 2020 had the mother unequivocally accepted that the English court had jurisdiction to deal with parental responsibility issues concerning her daughter. In his judgment, it would be wholly unprincipled, and a wrong exercise of the court's powers, for him to make orders on the father's application pursuant to the High Court's inherent powers in circumstances where the father had not established jurisdiction under either Brussels II or sections 1–3 of the Family Law Act 1986. His judgment was that the jurisdiction of the court depended on the territorial reach of Brussels II article 10. A question was referred to the Court of Justice for an urgent preliminary ruling: "Does Article 10 of Brussels 2 retain jurisdiction, without limit of time, in a member state if a child habitually resident in that member state was wrongfully removed to (or retained in) a non-member state where she, following such removal (or retention), in due course became habitually resident?" Pending receipt of the answer to the question the proceedings would be stayed. Judgment, 09/11/2020, free
- An appeal out of time by the mother against a decision that the father could arrange for the children to visit and stay with the paternal grandparents in the Ukraine. The children were very reluctant to see their father, and it had emerged that the father might be living with the paternal grandparents. She asked for the order to be varied for the holiday to take place within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Williams J allowed the appeal and remitted the case to a circuit judge at the Central Family Court for the issues to be determined. The decision had been reached in a manner that rendered it unjust by reason of serious procedural irregularity. Given the absence of notice and the lack of evidence neither the parties nor the court were in a position fairly to determine the issue. There was almost no consideration of the effect on the children or the risk of emotional harm or any reference to their wishes and feelings. Given the effect on the children of not being returned was a primary issue in such applications, the absence of any consideration of the issue rendered the decision wrong. Judgment, 09/11/2020, free
- The mother was Slovakian, the father British Algerian. Their one-year-old daughter was born in England. Following the parents' separation, the mother wished to relocate the daughter from England to Slovakia, which the father opposed. Each parent alleged abusive behaviour on the part of the other, both during the relationship and during handovers for contact. Poole J found the evidence of the mother's family more helpful that of the father's family. His conclusion was that the daughter's welfare would be best served by granting the mother's application. Neither the granting nor the refusal of permission to relocate would, in his judgment, involve a disproportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of either parent. The daughter would reside with the mother and the mother would have permission to relocate to Slovakia. Contact with the father would take place as the father proposed until relocation. After relocation contact would be as the mother had proposed. Judgment, 01/11/2020, free
Latest know-how
- The judge made an order for a summary return to Poland in respect of a 12 year old and her 17 year old brother in what he described as “a hot pursuit case.” Case note, 04/11/2019, members only
- In a tweet: Local expert evidence key to securing temporary leave to remove a child to Brazil (a Hague Convention country with a poor reputation for compliance) for holidays. Case note, 04/11/2019, members only
- A mother’s appeal was dismissed in circumstances in which she had challenged a return order made in respect of the child. Case note, 04/11/2019, members only
- Successful application by a father to secure the return of the parties’ daughter to Latvia. Case note, 04/11/2019, members only
- In brief: A father’s application for further directions to assist in the implementation of a return order made in respect of the parties’ two children, who were to be returned from England to the US, was dismissed on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain F’s application. Case note, 04/11/2019, members only
Latest training
- Recording of webinar first broadcast on 23 November 2018. Webcast, 29/11/2018, members only
- Tim Scott QC of 29 Bedford Row tries to make sense of what might happen to international family cases after 29th March next year and reviews a few recent key international finance cases. Recorded September 2018. Webcast, 07/10/2018, members only
- Tim Scott QC from 29 Bedford Row, provides an update to the Maintenance Regulation, 5 years after it came into force. This webcast was recorded on 1 September 2016. Webcast, 02/09/2016, members only
- Audio recording of webinar first broadcast live 26 April 2016 Webcast, 29/04/2016, free
- In this recorded webcast, Tim Scott QC from 29 Bedford Row summarises the main issues when dealing with cases involving financial claims in England following an overseas divorce. Webcast, 15/06/2015, members only
Latest sources
- An updated table of signatories and members states Tool, 02/03/2017, free
- Link to guidance on the Collaborative Family Law website Tool (external), 15/05/2012, free