- Everything (342)
- 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 (248)
- Practice direction (0)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- 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 mother made an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the son to New Zealand. The father had expressed concerns about the child's well-being in his mother's care. Darren Howe QC had to proceed on the basis that there was a risk of harm, but he noted that there had been improvements in the mother's parenting, and accepted her undertaking to prevent contact between her partner and the child. The father had not proved a grave risk of harm or an otherwise intolerable situation for the son and the defence therefore failed. An order would be made for the return of the son to New Zealand. 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
- Applications were made to redact a previous judgment concerning international child abduction, on the basis that criminal charges might be brought. Mostyn J said that such redactions would rob the judgment of the coercive effect that it was designed to achieve, and no decision to charge had yet been made. The applications were rejected. Judgment, 29/04/2019, free
- The mother took the children to Ukraine on an agreed holiday and did not return them. The father sought an order that would permit certain information about the case to be publicised. Mostyn J decided that the mother, her new husband and her father (a former Vice-President of Ukraine) could be named and their photographs published. Judgment, 23/04/2019, free
- The mother appealed against an order for the return of the child to Australia. The original retention of the child took place in Uganda, a country not party to the Hague Convention 1980. In Moylan LJ's view, a retention which takes place other than in a Contracting State is a retention which is justiciable under the Convention in a Contracting State, if and when the child travels to a Convention State. There is no need for removal to be to a Contracting State, nor is there any need for the retention to be in a Contracting State. McCombe LJ and Leggatt LJ agreed. Judgment, 23/04/2019, free
- Contrary to court orders, the father had wrongfully taken his son – a young man of nineteen with profound learning disabilities – to live in the USA. The mother sought an order for his return to the UK. Russell J DBE held that there were grounds for finding that a return to the UK was not in the young man's best interests. The child's future as an adult lay in the USA and these proceedings were to come to an end in recognition of that fact. The appropriate forum for any future litigation was the court in Texas. Judgment, 15/04/2019, free