Orders had been made for the return of three boys by the father to ther mother in Ireland. F had failed to comply with three earlier orders. M now said that he was in contempt.
Held: ‘ it is quite clear that it is a case that has raised strong emotions and that the father is very opposed to the children returning to the mother in Ireland; further that his cooperation with the court process has been partial, leaving it really up to the boys to say ‘no’, and standing behind that. What has to be understood, when children are sent back to jurisdictions from which they have been wrongly removed, is that proceedings can still take place in that other court whereby, if it is in their interests, the children can be given permission to depart from that jurisdiction and go to a different jurisdiction and carer. That is all this case is about. It is not making a final decision as to where they should live. It is just deciding which court should take the decision. I have observed the father carefully in court. I have formed the view that it is really inconceivable that he does not know where the children are. I am sure he does know where they are, or at least that he knows how they can be contacted and located. I did at the end of his evidence specifically direct that he tell me where they are and I find him to be in contempt in not giving the court the assistance which the court has required of him.’
Bodey J
[2013] EWHC 1353 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales
Children
Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.515535
