In re S (Child) (Abduction: Custody rights): CA 3 Jul 2002

The mother accepted that she had abducted her child from Israel, but sought to establish a defence under the convention that the security conditions in Israel were such as to justify the removal.
Held: The Convention requirements were restrictive, and were not satisfied in this case. The test of whether there was a grave risk that the minor’s return would expose her to physical and psychological harm and otherwise place her in an intolerable situation, required a twofold test. First to look at the actual risks faced, and then to take a broader view. The section was correctly to be interpreted narrowly. The risk of terrorist attack was not so high that she would not have been able to take minimal steps to reduce that risk.
Ward LJ said: ‘Although it is possible to appeal against a finding of fact, it is notoriously difficult to succeed in so doing. Where findings of fact are made based on the demeanour of a witness, the appeal court will seldom interfere because the trial judge has the special advantage over the appellate judge.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Sedley and Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

Times 15-Jul-2002, Gazette 12-Sep-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 908, [2002] Fam Law 733, [2002] 3 FCR 43, [2002] 1 WLR 3355

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 13(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174323