The mother of a child sought return of her son to Australia. The child was born in New Zealand, then came to England and the family then went to Australia. The father brought him back to England by subterfuge. He now denied the child had any habitual residence in Australia, and asserted that he would suffer psychological harm if sent to Australia.
Held: ‘Habitual’ and ‘ordinary’ residence’ were to be defined the same. Though the father denied the return to Australia had been intended to be permanent, the mother had established sufficient to show habitual residence before removal. Australian law gave the mother custodial rights at the time of removal. The words ‘grave risk’ did not mean the same as paramount welfare, and was to be established by different courts with different criteria.
Judges:
Sir Stephen Brown P
Citations:
[1991] 1 FLR 177
Statutes:
Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985
Cited by:
Cited – Nessa v Chief Adjudication Officer HL 3-Nov-1999
Mrs. Nessa arrived at Heathrow aged 55 having lived all her life in Bangladesh. Her husband, Mr. Mobarak Ali, had lived in the United Kingdom from 1962 until he died in 1975 and when she arrived here, Mrs. Nessa had a right of abode. She hoped to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.200336