The father sought the return to the USA of his daughter, brought here by her mother. The father had custody, but the mother said he had consented to the child being brought here.
Held: The issue of consent did not affect the question of the unlawfulness of the original abduction, but was relevant only when the judge came ask whether he should exercise his discretion. Article 13 should take its place as the exception to the general duty to return a child. Article 3 governed the entire Convention. The rights given by the New York courts were the ones which governed the question of what rights existed. The court was abundantly satisfied that C v C and the subsequent decisions in England to the same effect were right.
Judges:
Ward, Scott Baker LJJ, Lawrence Collins J
Citations:
Times 19-Aug-2004, [2005] Fam 293
Statutes:
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 12 13
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – 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 by:
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.200440