D v D & Ors

D v D & Ors

The court found that the father unequivocally consented to the children’s removal to England and did not subsequently object. The children are settled in England within the meaning of Article 12, having lived there for most of their lives, are well integrated, and have no memories of Norway. The court exercised its discretion to refuse the return of the children, as a return would not serve the Convention’s objectives and would likely be detrimental to the children’s welfare.

Parties
Applicant: D; 1st Respondent: D; 2nd & 3rd Respondents: Y and M (through their children’s guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Application for return orders refused
Legal Topics
Hague Convention 1980, Consent and Acquiescence, Settlement Exception, Discretion Under Article 12, Article 13(b) Defence
Family Law International Child Abduction Hague Convention 1980 Consent and Acquiescence Settlement Exception Discretion Under Article 12 Article 13(b) Defence

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D

Applicant

D

1st Respondent

Y and M (through their children’s guardian)

2nd & 3rd Respondents

Procedural Posture

Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the father consented to or acquiesced in the removal of the children to England
  2. 2 Whether the children are settled in England within the meaning of Article 12 of the Hague Convention
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to order the return of the children

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the father unequivocally consented to the children’s removal to England and did not subsequently object. The children are settled in England within the meaning of Article 12, having lived there for most of their lives, are well integrated, and have no memories of Norway. The court exercised its discretion to refuse the return of the children, as a return would not serve the Convention’s objectives and would likely be detrimental to the children’s welfare.

Court Disposition

Application for return orders refused

Orders

  • The applicant’s application for return orders is refused.