Family Law Hub

Wrongful Removal

Latest updates

  • A return order was made such that the child, who had been abducted from Spain to live in the UK, was returned to Spain to live with his father. Judgment, 07/11/2018, free
  • First announced as International Movement of Children & Child Abduction Update. To be broadcast 1-2pm 23 November News, 25/10/2018, free
  • The court ruled that the 4 year old child was habitually resident in Latvia at the time his mother unilaterally removed him to the UK and that he should be returned to Latvia within 14 days. Judgment, 25/10/2018, free
  • In brief: In 2016, the child (“E”) had been moved to Russia from England by her mother (“M”) in breach of a court order prohibiting E from leaving the jurisdiction. E was now two years old and had had very limited contact with her father (“F”). F sought E’s return to the jurisdiction but acknowledged that if she were to return without M (M having made clear she refused to return to England), E’s best interests dictated that she should be placed with social services rather than himself. Whilst contact between E and F was to be encouraged and facilitated, the court concluded that this would not be achieved by ordering E’s return. Instead, a welfare hearing was listed. Judgment, 20/08/2018, free
  • In brief: Following the making of an order returning the child to Spain from England, the mother’s (“M”) mental health rapidly deteriorated. She successfully applied to the High Court to have the order set aside and a re-hearing listed following a psychiatric assessment. The Court of Appeal upheld the set aside, concluding that the High Court has the power under the inherent jurisdiction to review and set aside 1980 Hague Convention final orders. The power can be used where there has been a fundamental change of circumstances which undermines the basis on which the original order was made. Here the original return order had been made where the court found that M had not made out her Article 13(b) defence which included M’s claims that there were grave risks to her mental health. Judgment, 16/08/2018, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

  • 12 questions on 3 cases summarised in the May 2018 Family Law Hub Digest CPD course, 05/06/2018, members only
  • Six questions, worth an hour of CPD, on the cases of HB v PB [2013] EWHC 1956 (Fam); DL v EL [2013] EWCA Civ 865 and K v D [2013] EWHC 796 (Fam) CPD course, 03/09/2013, members only
  • Six questions, worth an hour of CPD, on the cases of W v W [2012] EWHC 2469 (Fam), T v T [2012] EWHC 3462 (Fam) and TC & JC (Children: Relocation) [2013] EWHC 292 (Fam), which were published in February 2013. CPD course, 05/03/2013, members only

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