Family Law Hub

Children's Wishes

Latest updates

  • A third set of child abduction proceedings brought by the father pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention in respect of the same two children, a boy aged 9 and a girl aged 6. The children had been born in England, and the family had moved to Morocco in 2016. The mother had brought the children back to England while the father served a prison sentence for adultery, a criminal offence in Morocco. The return of the children to Morocco had twice previously been ordered, but each time the mother had brought them back to England. Francis J found that the children had been habitually resident in Morocco at the time of the most recent removal to England. He found that the views of the children had been "poisoned", and thus would not make any difference to his decision, which was for the children to be returned to Morocco. The mother was ordered to pay the father's costs on the indemnity basis. The judgment was not anonymised, in the hope that publicity would prevent a fourth abduction. Judgment, 28/09/2020, free
  • The mother applied under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (incorporating the Hague Convention 1980), and in the alternative under the inherent jurisdiction, for the return of her eight-year-old son to Russia. She contended that the father had wrongfully removed or retained the child in 2019. The father opposed the applications, raising issues of whether, at the relevant time, the child had been habitually resident in Russia and the mother had had rights of custody, whether the child would be at risk following a return, and whether the child objected to a return. The father's own prior applications, including for prohibited steps orders, had been stayed pending determination of the mother's applications. Cobb J found that the son had developed a sufficient degree of integration in life in Russia, while living there for ten months or so, to acquire habitual residence. The removal had indeed been in breach of the mother’s rights of custody. He did not believe that the son would be likely to suffer the “severe degree of psychological harm which the 1980 Hague Convention has in mind” (per Lord Donaldson) and the father therefore failed in his case under Article 13(b). Cobb J did not regard the son's objection to returning as being powerfully expressed or adamant. He reached the conclusion that a return to Russia was in the son's interests, where fully-informed welfare-based decisions could be made in a court to which both parents had ready access. Judgment, 27/07/2020, free
  • Both parents and the daughter were Brazilian nationals. The mother applied under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 for a summary return order pursuant to the provisions of the 1980 Hague Convention. The child had been habitually resident in Brazil and had been wrongfully retained in England following a holiday. The father resisted the application on Article 13(b) grounds, and on the ground that the child objected to returning for the purposes of Article 13. The maternal grandparents and a maternal aunt had alleged violent conduct towards the child on the part of the mother, and this had been confirmed by the child in conversation with the the Cafcass Officer. MacDonald J was satisfied that there was a grave risk that returning the daughter to Brazil would expose her to harm or an intolerable situation for the purposes of Article 13(b). It was clear that the daughter had settled well in England and was having her physical and emotional needs met here. He declined to make a summary return order and dismissed the mother's application. He emphasised that his decision was reached upon the very unusual facts of this case, i.e. that the holiday had provided the opportunity for the child to alert her other parent and the authorities to the risks she faced in Brazil. This was not a paradigm case of wrongful retention following a holiday. Judgment, 21/07/2020, free
  • HHJ Wildblood QC decided that this heavily anonymised judgment should be released for publication, because it was in the public's interest to see badly wrong things could go in cases of parental alienation. There had been a failure here to identify the problem before the damage was done, and early intervention was essential. Indirect contact was of limited use in such cases. The extent of the children's alienation from the father had been underestimated, and now, following a failed transfer of residence, he had no contact with them at all, and had withdrawn proceedings to prevent further distress. In this hearing HHJ Wildblood QC gave the local authority permission to withdraw their public law proceedings. Judgment, 21/10/2019, free
  • An order had been made transferring the boy's home to that of his father in Northern Ireland, because maintaining the placement with his mother and grandmother would cause him emotional harm. The situation did not rise to the level of parental alienation, but the child was unable to speak positively of his father in the maternal home. The mother appealed, arguing that there had been procedural irregularity, the decision to transfer residence was premature, and the conclusions on the balance of harm were wrong or insufficiently evidenced. Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, found that none of the challenges made on her behalf had been sustained. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 09/05/2019, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

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