AB v CD

AB v CD

E was not habitually resident in Brazil at the time of removal but was habitually resident in the United Kingdom; therefore, the Hague Convention does not apply and the removal was not wrongful. Even if wrong, the father had unequivocally consented to E's return to England.

Parties
Applicant Father: AB; Respondent Mother: CD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Hague Convention 1980, Child Abduction, Consent Under Article 13, Inherent Jurisdiction
Family Law International Child Abduction Habitual Residence Hague Convention 1980 Child Abduction Consent Under Article 13 Inherent Jurisdiction

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Applicant Father

CD

Respondent Mother

Procedural Posture

Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the child E was habitually resident in Brazil at the time of removal
  2. 2 Whether the removal was wrongful under Article 3 of the Hague Convention
  3. 3 Whether the father consented to the removal

Ratio Decidendi

E was not habitually resident in Brazil at the time of removal but was habitually resident in the United Kingdom; therefore, the Hague Convention does not apply and the removal was not wrongful. Even if wrong, the father had unequivocally consented to E's return to England.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Father's application for return of E to Brazil is dismissed
  • No order for return under inherent jurisdiction