It was possible for the court itself to have sufficient rights of custody under the Convention to allow a party to apply on the basis that an abduction had interfered with those rights of custody. A father had begun proceedings but did not himself have rights awarded, but he could apply on the basis that … Continue reading In Re H (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody): HL 3 Feb 2000
Erroneous legal advice may be taken into account when deciding whether there had been acquiescence. Times 16-Feb-1994 Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 Sch 1 England and Wales Children Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.82181
M had returned to the UK with her child on the strength of a US court order. F appealed successfully and now sought an order from the UK court for the return of the child. Held: F’s appeal against refusal of an order failed. Acting under the court order M had acted lawfully, and the … Continue reading DL v EL: CA 16 Jul 2013
The parents, both of Nigerian origin had started a family in Ireland. The mother came to England seeking asylum, going first to Salford and then to London. The father sought their return under the 1985 Act. The court had made interim orders for the authority to support the children and mother pending the outcome of … Continue reading In re A (Children) (Abduction: Interim Powers); EA v GA: CA 27 May 2010
The House addressed the question whether wrongful removal and wrongful retention were mutually exclusive concepts. The issue arose in the context of the commencement date for the 1985 Act as between the two States involved. Held: For the purposes of the Abduction Convention the two concepts were mutually exclusive, and that because article 12 required … Continue reading In Re H (Minors) (Abduction: Custody Rights): HL 1991
A lesbian couple had split up and disputed the care of the children. An order had been made but then, in breach of that order, one removed the children overnight to Cornwall. An argument was made that the court had failed to give proper weight to the considerations from the 1989 Act and had ignored … Continue reading CG v CW and Another (Children): CA 6 Apr 2006
The father sought to have registered here, a French order for parental contact. The mother had brought the child to England with the consent of the court, and then obtained an apparently conflicting order here. Held: There was a conflict between the Regulation and the Convention as scheduled to the 1985 Act. The London order … Continue reading In re G (Children) (Foreign contact order: Enforcement): CA 11 Nov 2003
The court considered what would constitute a child being ‘settled’ under the 1985 Act: ‘I now turn to the last matter, which is art. 12, as to whether in these circumstances it has been demonstrated that Katharine in now settled in her new environment. Mr Karsten submitted that the President made no finding on this … Continue reading Re S (A Minor) (Abduction): CA 1991
Acquisition of Habitual Residence Habitual residence can in principle be lost and another habitual residence acquired on the same day. Held: The provisions giving the courts of a member state jurisdiction also apply where there is an alternative jurisdiction in a non-member state such as the United States. The Regulation also deals with how child … Continue reading A v A and another (Children) (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening): SC 9 Sep 2013
The parents had married under shariah law. They left the US to return to the father’s home country Saudi Arabia. They parted, and the mother brought their son to England against the father’s wishes and in breach of an agreement. The father sought his summary return to Saudi Arabia, a non-Convention country. Held: The appeal … Continue reading Re J (A Child), Re (Child returned abroad: Convention Rights); (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction): HL 16 Jun 2005
Two children were born in Norway to a British mother (M) and Norwegian father (F). Having lived in Norway, M brought them to England to stay, but without F’s knowledge or consent. M replied to his application for their return that the children would be at risk if returned, alleging psychological abuse by F. She … Continue reading Re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal): SC 10 Jun 2011
The court considered the degree of settlement that had to be proved under the Act: ‘The second question which has arisen is: what is the degree of settlement which has to be demonstrated? There is some force, I find, in the argument that legal presumptions reflect the norm, and the presumption under the Convention is … Continue reading Re N (Minors) (Abduction): FD 2 Jan 1991
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return with her. Held: The mother’s appeal succeeded. The court had to consider the … Continue reading ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 1 Feb 2011
M and children had come back to England from Australia, and had F’s consent to stay for another year. She then applied for British Citizenship for the children without F’s knowledge. F now sought their return. Held: The children had become habitually resident in the UK. There was no concept of repudiatory retention known to … Continue reading Re P and O (Child Abduction: Anticipatory Breach): FD 10 Nov 2016
The Hague Convention did not apply to wrongful acts of removal which had taken place before the 1985 Act came into force.Lord Donaldson MR said: ‘plainly the Act and Convention can only apply if the child is found in a different State from that in which it was habitually resident’ Lord Donaldson MR Independent 20 … Continue reading In re H (Minors): CA 20 Aug 1990
Hayden J said: ‘In assessing whether a child has lost a pre-existing habitual residence and gained a new one, the court must weigh up the degree of connection which the child had with the state in which he resided before the move.’ Hayden J [2016] EWHC 2174 (Fam), [2016] 4 WLR 156, [2016] WLR(D) 471 … Continue reading Re B (A Minor : Habitual Residence): FD 24 Aug 2016
F appealed against refusal of an order requiring M to return their two children to Australia. Black, Sharp, Thirlwall LJJ [2017] EWCA Civ 980, [2018] 1 All ER 476, [2018] 1 FLR 186, [2017] 3 FCR 719, [2017] WLR(D) 479 Bailii, WLRD Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – … Continue reading In Re C (Children): CA 12 Jul 2017
‘This appeal concerns the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. It raises general questions relating to: (1) the place which the habitual residence of the child occupies in the scheme of that Convention, and (2) whether and when a wrongful retention of a child may occur if the travelling parent originally … Continue reading Re C (Children): SC 14 Feb 2018
On 21 March 1990 the mother removed the child, aged two, from Australia, where he had been habitually resident, to England with the intention of permanently residing here. She did so without the knowledge of the father who also resided in Australia but who, not having been married to the mother, had at that time … Continue reading In re J (a Minor) (Abduction: Custody rights): HL 1 Jul 1990
The father sought leave to appeal against care orders made in respect of his three children. The family were Pakistani Pathan muslims. There had been disputes and violence within the extended family. One family member sought protection but was now alleged herself to be responsible for threats and violence. After a fire, the children were … Continue reading AM v Local Authority and Another; Re B-M (Care Orders): CA 16 Mar 2009
The court was asked whether it had jurisdiction to hear applications with regard to a child removed from Scotland. The father lived in Scotland, and the mother and child in England. The child had been habitually resident in Scotland and removed to . .
Parties challenged the rule allowing the respondent to deny the right to enter or remain here to non EU citizens marrying a person settled and present here where either party was under the age of 21. The aim of the rule was to deter forced . .
The father sought the return of the two children to Poland after they had been brought to England by the mother. She said that she had come to seek work as a dentist, and had been unable to support the family in Poland. She said that her Polish . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
