The mother had wrongfully removed the children from Australia to this country. The father wrote to the mother saying that ‘I think you know that what you have done is illegal, but I’m not going to fight it’ and generally giving the impression that he would regretfully go along with the children’s staying permanently with the mother in this country. However he was making arrangements to begin action here. The obligation on a court to order the return of abducted children to their country of origin, was to be relaxed after the court had made a finding of consent on the part of the parent from whom it was claimed the children had been removed.
Balcombe LJ (dissenting)
Gazette 29-Jul-1992, [1992] Fam 106
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.
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.85689