The mother resisted an order requiring her to return to Saudi Arabia her child, saying that his human rights would be breached in Saudi.
Held: The court could apply the convention only as regards actions which would take place in a convention country. Speed was essential in dealing with international child abduction cases. Whilst there could be no criticism of the judge’s ‘impeccable direction’ on the applicable legal principles, the court allowed the father’s appeal on the ground that the judge had ‘elevated this specific anxiety above a level that the evidence justified.’ Accordingly it should not have had such a decisive effect in what had earlier been described as ‘an otherwise balanced judgment.’
Judges:
Thorpe LJ, Wall LJ, Gage J
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 417, Times 14-Apr-2004, [2004] 2 FLR 85
Links:
Statutes:
Children Act 1989 8, Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Re J (A Child), Re (Child returned abroad: Convention Rights); (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) HL 16-Jun-2005
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Human Rights
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195742