CJ v KJ

CJ v KJ

AJ was habitually resident in the United States at the relevant time, but the father consented to and acquiesced in AJ’s retention in Wales. The mother established grave risk only if she could not remain in the United States during proceedings. Given the time elapsed, AJ’s settlement in Wales, and the nature of the defences proved, the court exercised its discretion not to order AJ’s return.

Parties
Applicant: CJ; Respondent: KJ
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Family / Judgment
Outcome
Application for summary return of AJ to the United States refused.
Legal Topics
Hague Convention, Habitual Residence, Consent, Acquiescence, Grave Risk, Child Custody

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CJ

Applicant

KJ

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Judgment

  1. 1 Was AJ habitually resident in the United States at the time of alleged wrongful retention?
  2. 2 Did the father consent to or acquiesce in AJ's retention in Wales?
  3. 3 Would AJ's return to the United States expose her to grave risk of harm?

Ratio Decidendi

AJ was habitually resident in the United States at the relevant time, but the father consented to and acquiesced in AJ’s retention in Wales. The mother established grave risk only if she could not remain in the United States during proceedings. Given the time elapsed, AJ’s settlement in Wales, and the nature of the defences proved, the court exercised its discretion not to order AJ’s return.

Court Disposition

Application for summary return of AJ to the United States refused.

Orders

  • No order for AJ’s return to the United States.
  • Mother and AJ to remain in Wales.