R v R

R v R

The father did not acquiesce to the children remaining in England and Wales; his agreement was always contingent on contact and thus equivocal. The evidence does not establish a subjective intention to acquiesce, nor do his statements and actions clearly and unequivocally show acquiescence or lead the mother to believe he would not assert his right to summary return. The children must be returned to Canada forthwith.

Parties
Applicant Father: GR; Respondent Mother: NR
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Hague Convention Child Abduction / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for summary return granted
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Jurisdiction, Acquiescence, Children Act 1989, Brussels II Revised
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Jurisdiction Acquiescence Children Act 1989 Brussels II Revised

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GR

Applicant Father

NR

Respondent Mother

Procedural Posture

Hague Convention Child Abduction / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the father acquiesced to the children remaining in England and Wales following their wrongful removal from Canada
  2. 2 Whether the English court had jurisdiction to make orders under the Children Act 1989

Ratio Decidendi

The father did not acquiesce to the children remaining in England and Wales; his agreement was always contingent on contact and thus equivocal. The evidence does not establish a subjective intention to acquiesce, nor do his statements and actions clearly and unequivocally show acquiescence or lead the mother to believe he would not assert his right to summary return. The children must be returned to Canada forthwith.

Court Disposition

Application for summary return granted

Orders

  • Children to be returned forthwith to Canada, their jurisdiction of habitual residence, for the Canadian courts to determine outstanding welfare issues