MM v VM

MM v VM

The removal of the children from Zimbabwe was wrongful under the Hague Convention. The father did not consent to or acquiesce in the removal. Although the children are now settled in the UK, the court exercised its discretion to order their return due to the exceptional nature of the wrongful removal, the lack of grave risk or intolerable situation in Zimbabwe, and the policy of the Convention. The children's objections were not sufficiently strong or determinative to prevent return.

Parties
Applicant/father: MM; Respondent/mother: VM (also known as VRM)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Application granted; order for immediate return of the children to Zimbabwe.
Legal Topics
International Child Abduction, Hague Convention 1980, Custody Rights, Consent and Acquiescence, Grave Risk Exception, Settlement Exception, Children's Objections, Immigration Status
Family Law International Law International Child Abduction Hague Convention 1980 Custody Rights Consent and Acquiescence Grave Risk Exception Settlement Exception +2 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 6 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MM

Applicant/father

VM (also known as VRM)

Respondent/mother

Procedural Posture

Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the removal of the children from Zimbabwe to the UK was wrongful under the Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether the father consented to or acquiesced in the removal or retention
  3. 3 Whether the children are now settled in their new environment (Article 12)

Ratio Decidendi

The removal of the children from Zimbabwe was wrongful under the Hague Convention. The father did not consent to or acquiesce in the removal. Although the children are now settled in the UK, the court exercised its discretion to order their return due to the exceptional nature of the wrongful removal, the lack of grave risk or intolerable situation in Zimbabwe, and the policy of the Convention. The children's objections were not sufficiently strong or determinative to prevent return.

Court Disposition

Application granted; order for immediate return of the children to Zimbabwe.

Orders

  • The children are to be returned to Zimbabwe forthwith.
  • The father's undertakings as set out in Annex A are accepted and binding.