J (Children)

J (Children)

The appeal was dismissed because the President correctly applied the law requiring the applicant to prove, to the criminal standard, that the mother had the ability to comply with the orders at the relevant time. The evidence did not establish this, given the children's determined refusal. The alternative arguments for strict liability or reverse burden were not accepted, and the established line of authority was not shown to be wrong or per incuriam.

Parties
Appellant: Appellant Father; 1st Respondent: Respondent Mother; 2nd Respondent: J (Child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court (family Division) Regarding Committal Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Child Return Orders, Hague Convention 1980, Burden of Proof in Committal Proceedings, Human Rights (echr Article 8)
Family Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Enforcement of Child Return Orders Hague Convention 1980 Burden of Proof in Committal Proceedings Human Rights (echr Article 8)

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant Father

Appellant

Respondent Mother

1st Respondent

J (Child)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court (family Division) Regarding Committal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether contempt of court for breach of child return orders requires proof of ability to comply
  2. 2 Whether strict liability or reverse burden applies in committal for breach of child-related orders
  3. 3 Whether established authority on contempt is compliant with ECHR and Human Rights Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the President correctly applied the law requiring the applicant to prove, to the criminal standard, that the mother had the ability to comply with the orders at the relevant time. The evidence did not establish this, given the children's determined refusal. The alternative arguments for strict liability or reverse burden were not accepted, and the established line of authority was not shown to be wrong or per incuriam.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Father's application for committal of the mother dismissed
  • Return order made by Hedley J on 9 October 2012 in relation to both children set aside