B v A

B v A

The trial judge's assessment that the risk of retention by the respondent was low, based on oral evidence and conduct of both parties, was not unreasonable or wrong. The judge acted within his discretion, and the appellant's arguments did not demonstrate procedural or substantive error.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: B; Respondent: A
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Family Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements, Prohibited Steps Order, Temporary Removal to Non Hague Country, Risk Assessment, Safeguards
Family Law Child Arrangements Prohibited Steps Order Temporary Removal to Non Hague Country Risk Assessment Safeguards

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B

Appellant

A

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge adequately considered the risk of the respondent not returning the child to the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge adequately assessed the risk to the child's safety and security in Iraq
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge put adequate safeguards in place

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's assessment that the risk of retention by the respondent was low, based on oral evidence and conduct of both parties, was not unreasonable or wrong. The judge acted within his discretion, and the appellant's arguments did not demonstrate procedural or substantive error.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order continuing the stay
  • Orders of His Honour Judge Tolson QC remain in force