For the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention, the question whether the wronged parent has ‘acquiesced’ in the removal or retention of the child depends upon his actual state of mind of the parent: ‘the court is primarily concerned, not with the question of the other parent’s perception of the applicant’s conduct, but with the question whether the applicant acquiesced in fact’.
Neill LJ
[1994] 1 FLR 819
Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – H v H (Child Abduction: Acquiescence) CA 14-Aug-1996
The parents were orthodox Jews. The mother brought the children to England, and resisted an order for their return, saying the father had delayed in bringing the proceedings.
Held: A parent must act quickly in cases of child abduction in order . .
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 – In Re H and others (Minors) HL 10-Apr-1997
Three young children had been brought to England from Israel by their mother but without the consent of the father, who now sought their return. The mother claimed that the father had subsequently acquiesced in the removal. Both parents were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children
Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.219635
