Latest updates
- 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
- The father applied for the summary return of his daughter to Israel. The mother claimed that the child had been habitually resident in England prior to the wrongful retention, and that returning her to Israel would place her at risk for the purposes of Art 13(b) of the 1980 Convention. MacDonald J found that the mother's oral and written evidence had to be treated with some caution. He ruled that, despite the father's consent to the move, the child remained habitually resident in Israel, due to the unsettled situation in London. Sufficient protective measures were in place, and the court exercised its discretion to order that the child be returned to Israel. Judgment, 31/05/2019, free
- The mother having removed the daughter from Australia and gone to ground in the Outer Hebrides, MacDonald J ruled that it was a blatant and premeditated act of child abduction. He found that her evidence showed a marked tendency towards hyperbole and exaggeration, and she had not succeeded in bringing the case within the exception in Art 13(b) of the Hague Convention 1980. He ordered the summary return of the child to the father. The court had previously allowed publicity of the case to assist in locating the child, and so he did not require this judgment to be published in an anonymised form. Judgment, 28/05/2019, free
- The father sought an order for the summary return of the daughter to Israel. The mother claimed that this would subject the daughter to a grave risk of exposure to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place her in an intolerable situation. MacDonald J disagreed. Asked to consider previous findings involving the same father, he said that the court should be cautious about importing judicial observations made in the context of a different relationship and factual framework. He considered that the mother's actions constituted a premeditated and blatant act of child abduction, intended to circumvent the due process of the Israeli courts, and ordered the daughter's summary return in time for the new school term. Judgment, 08/05/2019, free
- The father sought the summary return of his son to California. HHJ Robertshaw allowed oral evidence on the issue of acquiescence but found that very little of value or relevance was gained. The written communications did not support a defence of acquiescence under Article 13(a), and the judge was satisfied that adequate arrangements could be made to secure the child's protection after his return, so the defence under Article 13(b) (grave risk of harm/intolerability) also failed. A return order was made. Judgment, 08/05/2019, free
Latest know-how
- 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
- President's Guidance announcing promulgation of the long awaited standard orders for children cases Practice note, 07/06/2018, free
- In a tweet: Repudiatory retention is possible in 1980 Hague Convention proceedings Case note, 11/04/2018, members only
- In a tweet: Child's subjective fear of return can establish an Article 13 defence Case note, 11/04/2018, 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
- 10 questions relating to Timothy Scott QC's webinar on International Family Law which was recorded on 8 October 2013 CPD course, 10/10/2013, members only
- Training notes to accompany Timothy Scott QC's recorded webinar on International Family Law Training note, 09/10/2013, members only
Latest sources
- Practice direction (external), 13/03/2018, free
- Updates Schedules of contracting states SI, 20/07/2017, free
- An updated table of signatories and members states Tool, 02/03/2017, free
- An updated table of signatories and members states International regs (external), 02/03/2017, free
Documentation
Using the Hub
Searching
Notices
T&Cs
Privacy
Legal Materials Copyright Statement & Disclaimer
Find out More
What's on the Hub
What's included in your membership
About Us
Contact Us
Stay up to date
Read about our free email alerts
Sign up here
Share