E, Z, D, V (Inherent Jurisdiction: Refusal of Return Order), Re

E, Z, D, V (Inherent Jurisdiction: Refusal of Return Order), Re

It is not in the best interests of any of the subject children for a summary return order to be made under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction requiring their return to Uganda. The children have integrated into life in England, expressed clear and genuine wishes to remain, and return would cause unnecessary disruption and emotional harm. Protective measures proposed by the father are insufficient to ameliorate risks to the children and mother. The welfare of the children, individually and collectively, demands they remain in England as a single sibling group.

Parties
Applicant: A; Respondent: R; Intervenor: N
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Family / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Inherent Jurisdiction, Summary Return, Child Welfare, Custody, Parental Responsibility, Non Hague Convention Cases
Family Law International Child Abduction Inherent Jurisdiction Summary Return Child Welfare Custody Parental Responsibility Non Hague Convention Cases

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant

R

Respondent

N

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Family / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the summary return of the children to Uganda is in their best interests under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
  2. 2 Whether protective measures proposed by the father sufficiently ameliorate risks to the children and mother
  3. 3 Impact of children's wishes and feelings on the welfare evaluation

Ratio Decidendi

It is not in the best interests of any of the subject children for a summary return order to be made under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction requiring their return to Uganda. The children have integrated into life in England, expressed clear and genuine wishes to remain, and return would cause unnecessary disruption and emotional harm. Protective measures proposed by the father are insufficient to ameliorate risks to the children and mother. The welfare of the children, individually and collectively, demands they remain in England as a single sibling group.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order for summary return of the children to Uganda
  • Children to remain in England as a single sibling group