- Everything (332)
- Model letter (0)
- Practice note (1)
- Precedent (0)
- Uploads (0)
- Tools (0)
- Article (0)
- Case note (90)
- News (2)
- Polls (0)
- CPD course (0)
- CPD diploma (0)
- Training note (0)
- Webinar (1)
- Downloads (0)
- Form (0)
- Judgment (238)
- Practice direction (0)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- 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
- The eleven-year-old son was born in Italy and was an Italian national, as was the mother. The father had brought the son to England; the mother sought his summary return. The father asked the court to exercise its discretion to refuse to so order on the basis of the exceptions under Article 13(a) (asserting that the mother had not been exercising her rights of custody at the relevant time) and Article 13(2) (asserting that the son objected to returning to Italy and had attained an age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to take account of his views). Mr Richard Harrison QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, thought it was clear that the mother had actually been exercising her rights of custody. He also found that while the son had attained the requisite age and degree of maturity and genuinely objected to returning, those objections were the product of significant influence on the part of the father, who had previously recruited the child as a co-conspirator in the wrongful removal. The child's views would not be decisive of the outcome. Welfare considerations led him instead to order the child's return to Italy, albeit not until the half-term holidays. Judgment, 26/10/2020, free
- The mother appealed from a return order made under the 1980 Hague Convention. She contended that the judge had been wrong to decide that the children were habitually resident in Germany at the date of her wrongful retention of them in England. It was submitted on her behalf that the judge had focused on whether the children had lost their habitual residence in Germany, rather than on the relevant question of whether their residence in England had acquired the requisite degree of integration and stability. In Moylan LJ's view, the appeal had to be allowed. On a proper application of the appropriate test, the children had been habitually resident in England at the date of their retention, and thus the father's application under the 1980 Convention had to be dismissed. Simler LJ and Sir Stephen Richards agreed. Judgment, 25/08/2020, 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
- The father applied under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court for an order for the summary return of four children, aged 1, 9, 13 and 14, to the jurisdiction of Pakistan. The mother opposed the application. Both parents and all four children were Pakistani nationals, but the three oldest children had UK passports. The mother alleged domestic abuse, as did the three oldest children. The father alleged a scheme to marry the children off for immigration purposes. MacDonald J found that the father had at times been an arrogant witness, pre-occupied with the impact of the case on his reputation, and dishonest in his evidence. He found that the mother had also been "economical with the truth". The children had been habitually resident in Pakistan at the time of their removal, but a welfare case against their summary return was made out. Returning them, against their wishes, would not be in their best interests. The father's application was dismissed, and a stay on the mother's Children Act 1989 proceedings was lifted. Judgment, 24/07/2020, 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
- The son had been born in Poland and brought to England by the mother. She now appealed from a return order made under the 1980 Hague Convention. Moylan LJ's view was that the deputy High Court judge hearing the case had not engaged sufficiently with the factors required to determine the issue of habitual residence, and it was unclear whether he had considered where the son was habitually resident at any date other than one particular month. His analysis had an undue focus on the mother's intentions and the question of whether she had formed an intention to stay permanently in England. Peter Jackson LJ and Newey LJ agreed. The father's application under the 1980 Convention would have to be reheard, unless the parents could come to an agreement. Judgment, 20/07/2020, free
- The final hearing of the mother's application for her daughter's summary return to Poland pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention or, alternatively, the inherent jurisdiction. In 2012, the mother had wrongfully removed the child from England, but the Polish court had found a defence under Article 13(b) to be made out. In 2015, the father had wrongfully removed the daughter from Poland, where she was at that time habitually resident, using a covertly acquired Algerian passport for her. The mother's 1980 Hague Convention application in England had led to a collection order in 2020, but she had needed to return to Poland and the child had returned to the father's care. The mother conceded during this hearing that, given her daughter's objections to a return to Poland, her applications could not succeed. The daughter urgently required finality as to where she would be living and with whom, said Gwynneth Knowles J, and that would be achieved by permitting the mother to withdraw her application. However, both parents needed to hear what their daughter was saying about contact and adapt themselves accordingly. Judgment, 12/07/2020, free
- The father sought an order requiring the return of his daughter to the Czech Republic pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention. After moving out, the mother had told him that they were living in the Czech Republic, and he had then discovered from her sister that they were actually living in England. Divorce proceedings had been initiated but not completed. The mother acted in person, with the help of a non-professional translator. Her belief was that the child would be subject to anti-Roma racism if returned to the Czech Republic. The court was required to determine: (a) whether the child was habitually resident in the Czech Republic prior to her removal to England in 2018, so as to engage the powers and obligations conferred by the 1980 Convention; and (b) if the 1980 Convention was engaged, whether the mother, who opposed the return of the child to the Czech Republic, could establish that such a return would give rise to a situation described in article 13(b) of the 1980 Convention. HHJ Hillier found that the daughter was habitually resident in the Czech Republic. No risks raised by the mother in respect of article 13(b) reached a level of seriousness as to be anywhere near to "grave". HHJ Hillier's discretion as to whether to return the child had not been engaged by a potential defence under article 13(b), but even if it had been, she would have exercised her discretion firmly in respect of return so that the child would be placed in the Czech Republic whilst her future welfare was determined. Judgment, 07/07/2020, free
- The mother applied for the summary return of three children from Wales, where they lived with the father, to the Republic of Ireland. A fourth child lived with the mother. During a period of homelessness, the mother had asked the father to care for the four children on a temporary basis in his home in Wales. Upon her finding accommodation, the father had declined to return them, and she had collected the youngest from his school and taken him back to Ireland. The court had to determine: the nature of the agreement between the parents; whether the father had wrongfully retained the children; whether the children had been habitually resident in the Republic of Ireland; whether an article 13 exception had been established; and, if it had, whether the court should exercise its discretion not to order the children's return. Nigel Poole QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, concluded that the evidence did not establish that the mother had secured suitable accommodation by the given time. He was not satisfied that the father was guilty of wrongful retention of the children at any point prior to the application being made, and so the Convention and Regulations could not assist the mother in her application for summary return. The children's time in Ireland had been chaotic and peripatetic; they remained habitually resident in the United Kingdom throughout. The defence under Article 13(b) was made out: they should not be expected to tolerate returning to Ireland without the reassurance of stability and security. Had he found that there had been a wrongful retention, he would have had no hesitation in exercising his discretion so as to refuse return. The mother's application for summary return was dismissed. Judgment, 24/06/2020, free