Family Law Hub

International

Latest updates

  • The father had deprived the mother and son of their passports, stranding the child in India without either parent. Having previously declined to make an order for the child's summary return to England, Williams J found that the boy's welfare was now best promoted by being reunited with his mother. He made an interim order for the boy's return, subject to judges in India removing the order that prohibited his removal from that jurisdiction. Judgment, 17/06/2019, free
  • The mother applied for an order requiring the father to return their son from Ghana to England. The father argued that the mother had consented to the move, and that the child would benefit educationally from staying there for two more years. Four of the mother's other children had been removed from her care. MacDonald J found that the father had misrepresented the trip as a summer holiday. There was no evidence that the child's current school provision was equipped to meet his educational needs. The father himself was no longer in Ghana. MacDonald J was satisfied that the court retained jurisdiction, and ordered the child's return, making him a ward of court. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free
  • the HCCH Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (“Child Support Convention”) enters into force for Kazakhstan, following the deposit of its instrument of accession on 6 June 2017. News, 14/06/2019, free
  • Ms O sought a declaration, under s 55(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1986, that she had married Mr B-M in Ghana. Mr B-M denied that there had been a marriage ceremony, or at least not one to which he had consented. Much of the ceremony had been conducted in languages Mr B-M did not speak, and it had been described as an engagement ceremony. Mr Recorder Allen QC held that what happened was sufficient to be considered a customary marriage ceremony, but that Ms O did not believe she was getting married and Mr B-M and his family had not consented to a marriage. Therefore, their marriage could not be recognised under English law and Ms O's application failed. Judgment, 03/06/2019, free
  • The father applied for the summary return to Germany of his two-year-old daughter, after the mother did not bring her back from a holiday. However, the father had not applied in the German courts for custody or contact, nor had the mother applied for custody, and Mostyn J criticised them for instead "devoting all their forensic energy to fighting this procedural battle". He found that the father had acquiesced in Article 13.1(a) terms to the daughter's continued living in the UK, and it would be precipitate to order her summary return before the matter had been brought before a German court. Judgment, 03/06/2019, free

Latest know-how

  • Florence Jones, Pupil, 1 Hare Court, writes a case summary of Pierburg v Pierburg [2019] EWFC 24. Case note, 26/04/2019, members only
  • In brief: A preliminary ruling from the ECJ determined that in order to establish habitual residence under Article 8 BIIR, a child must be physically present in the member state. The circumstances of the child being physically present elsewhere are irrelevant. This was a referral from the English High Court where the father ("F") had allegedly coerced the mother ("M") into remaining in Bangladesh with the child, potentially in breach of their ECHR rights. Case note, 17/12/2018, members only
  • The Romanian court sought a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice about interpreting Article 15 where two member states have jurisdiction, one under Article 8, the other under Article 12 Case note, 17/12/2018, members only
  • In a tweet: A non-parent without rights granted by a court or by someone with parental rights can use Article 21 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 19801980 Hague Convention to gain rights of access Case note, 26/10/2018, members only
  • In a tweet: Successful appeal against a refusal to set aside an order requiring her children to be returned to England Case note, 06/08/2018, members only

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