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 solicitor had advised her that the effect of court orders in Poland would not restrict her actions. The father said that the contact rights given by the polish Court amounted to rights of custody.
Held: The father’s rights included ‘parental authority’. The court took this to ‘award parental authority to the mother in the sense of responsibility for the day to day care and problems of the two children while providing/ reserving to the father restricted (parental) authority to ‘co-decide’ with the mother ‘vital problems’ in connection with upbringing, education and medical treatment’ ‘ and ‘the father’s (restricted) custody right is to be found in his right of veto and not in a mere right to apply to the court.’ The removal of the children to England was in breach of the father’s rights of custody. The wife had not shown acquiescence. The father pointed toa report saying that the mother had poisoned the children’s minds against him, but the child welfare officer found the objections genuine. The father had not challenged three issues of substance supporting the children’s views. The deciding factor was the contrast between the success of the children in their schooling in England and in Poland. No order for return was to be made.
Sir Mark Potter P
[2008] EWHC 272 (Fam), [2008] Fam 75, [2008] 2 FLR 1239, [2008] 3 WLR 527, [2008] Fam Law 966, [2008] 2 FCR 120
Bailii
Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – C v C (Minor:Abduction: Rights of Custody Abroad) CA 1989
The English mother married the Australian father in Australia and bore their child their. After divorce both parents had custody with no right to remove the child. The mother brought the child to England without the father’s consent.
Held: The . .
Cited – In re D (A Child), (Abduction: Rights of Custody) HL 16-Nov-2006
The child had been born to parents who married and later divorced in Romania. The mother brought him to England without the father’s consent, and now appealed an order for his return.
Held: The mother’s appeal succeeded. The Convention . .
Cited – Re H, H v H (Child Abduction: Acquiescence) HL 10-Apr-1997
The mother and father were orthodox Jews. The mother brought the children to England from Israel against the father’s wishes. She said that he had acquiesced in their staying here by asking for them to be returned to Israel temporarily. The father . .
Cited – S v S (Child abduction) (Child’s views) 1992
Where a parent objects to the child being returned under the Act to a home country on the basis of the child’s objections, if the objections result solely from a desire to remain with the abducting parent, who in turn does not wish to return, then . .
Cited – Re M (A Child) CA 27-Mar-2007
The Court reviewed the questions which need to be explored when considering a defence of Child’s Objections to a claim under the Act for their return to a home country. It shouls ask:
(1) Are the objections to return made out? In this connection . .
Cited – Re M and another (Children) (Abduction; Rights of Custody) HL 5-Dec-2007
Three children had been brought from Zimbabwe by their mother against the wishes of the father and in breach of his rights there. The mother appealed an order for their return.
Held: The mother’s appeal was allowed. The House had to consider . .
Cited – Klentzeris v Klentzeris CA 10-May-2007
In the exercise of a discretion under the Hague Convention in a child’s objections case, an additional test or requirement of ‘exceptionality’ is appropriate when the Court comes to weigh the policy considerations underlying the Convention against . .
Cited – Cannon v Cannon CA 19-Oct-2004
The mother had brought the child to the UK wrongfully. She had hidden their identity for more than a year. Upon discovering her, the father came to England and began proceedings for the child’s return to the US.
Held: Because the child’s . .
Cited – Zaffino v Zaffino 2006
The court considered the treatment of a child’s objections to being returned to a home country by an order under the Act. . .
Cited – Vigreux v Michel and Another CA 18-May-2006
The mother sought the return of her children to France. Her summons had been dismissed after balancing the policy of the Convention against the strength of the child’s objection to return together with certain welfare considerations. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.264661 br>