DJO v SEO

Neither acquiescence nor grave risk of harm/intolerability was established; adequate protective measures can be implemented, and the child must be returned to California after respondent's delivery.

Parties: Applicant: D J O; Respondent: S E O
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 02 February 2018
Procedural Posture: Child Abduction (hague Convention) / Final Judgment
Outcome: Return order granted under Article 12; child to be returned to California not later than three weeks after respondent's delivery.
Legal Topics: Hague Convention, Summary Return, Acquiescence, Grave Risk of Harm, Protective Measures

Family Law International Child Abduction Hague Convention Summary Return Acquiescence Grave Risk of Harm Protective Measures

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

D J O

Applicant

S E O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction (hague Convention) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the applicant acquiesced to the wrongful removal of the child under Article 13(a)
2 Whether returning the child would place him at grave risk of harm or in an intolerable situation under Article 13(b)
3 Adequacy of protective measures for the child and respondent upon return

Ratio Decidendi

Neither acquiescence nor grave risk of harm/intolerability was established; adequate protective measures can be implemented, and the child must be returned to California after respondent's delivery.

Court Disposition

Return order granted under Article 12; child to be returned to California not later than three weeks after respondent's delivery.

Orders

Immediate notification of birth to applicant, legal team, and court.
Exclusion and non-harassment orders.