Re XX (A Child)

Re XX (A Child)

The Oklahoma Court was not seised of custody issues at the time of removal, as paternity had not been determined and no application for custody was before the Court; therefore, Article 3 of the Hague Convention 1980 was not engaged and there was no unlawful removal. Even if Article 3 were engaged, return to the USA would expose the child to grave risk of psychological harm and an intolerable situation due to likely separation from the mother and ongoing parental conflict. The English Court has jurisdiction for care proceedings as the child was habitually resident and present in England at the relevant dates. England is the natural and appropriate forum for determination of the child's...

Parties
Applicant/second Respondent: AA; First Respondent: BB; Second Respondent/cross Applicant: Coventry City Council; Third Respondent: XX (by his Children’s Guardian); Intervener: The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Family Law (child Abduction and Care Proceedings) / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for summary return under Hague Convention 1980 dismissed; English Court retains jurisdiction for care proceedings; application for stay and transfer to California rejected.
Legal Topics
Hague Convention 1980, Hague Convention 1996, Children Act 1989, Jurisdiction, Habitual Residence, Forum Conveniens, Grave Risk Exception
Family Law International Child Abduction Jurisdiction Hague Convention 1980 Hague Convention 1996 Children Act 1989 Habitual Residence Forum Conveniens +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AA

Applicant/second Respondent

BB

First Respondent

Coventry City Council

Second Respondent/cross Applicant

XX (by his Children’s Guardian)

Third Respondent

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Family Law (child Abduction and Care Proceedings) / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Hague Convention 1980 is engaged for summary return of the child
  2. 2 Whether the English Court has jurisdiction to hear care proceedings
  3. 3 Whether there is a grave risk to the child if returned to the USA

Ratio Decidendi

The Oklahoma Court was not seised of custody issues at the time of removal, as paternity had not been determined and no application for custody was before the Court; therefore, Article 3 of the Hague Convention 1980 was not engaged and there was no unlawful removal. Even if Article 3 were engaged, return to the USA would expose the child to grave risk of psychological harm and an intolerable situation due to likely separation from the mother and ongoing parental conflict. The English Court has jurisdiction for care proceedings as the child was habitually resident and present in England at the relevant dates. England is the natural and appropriate forum for determination of the child's...

Court Disposition

Application for summary return under Hague Convention 1980 dismissed; English Court retains jurisdiction for care proceedings; application for stay and transfer to California rejected.

Orders

  • No order for summary return of the child to the USA.
  • Care proceedings to continue in England.