DL v EL

DL v EL

The removal of KL to England in August 2011 was not wrongful under the Hague Convention as it was pursuant to a valid court order and not in breach of F's rights of custody. Subsequent retention in England was not wrongful as KL had become habitually resident in England by the time of the US appellate reversal and District Court order. The English court has jurisdiction for welfare decisions, and no return order is made under Article 18 or inherent jurisdiction absent evidence that such return is in KL's best interests.

Parties
Applicant: DL; Respondent: EL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction and Custody / Judgment After Hearing of Hague Convention and Inherent Jurisdiction Applications
Outcome
Hague Convention applications for summary return dismissed; no return order made under inherent jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Hague Convention, Habitual Residence, Child Custody, Jurisdiction, Welfare Principle
Family Law International Child Abduction Hague Convention Habitual Residence Child Custody Jurisdiction Welfare Principle

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DL

Applicant

EL

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction and Custody / Judgment After Hearing of Hague Convention and Inherent Jurisdiction Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether removal of KL from Texas to England was wrongful under Article 3 of the Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether subsequent retention of KL in England was wrongful after US appellate reversal
  3. 3 Determination of KL's habitual residence at relevant times

Ratio Decidendi

The removal of KL to England in August 2011 was not wrongful under the Hague Convention as it was pursuant to a valid court order and not in breach of F's rights of custody. Subsequent retention in England was not wrongful as KL had become habitually resident in England by the time of the US appellate reversal and District Court order. The English court has jurisdiction for welfare decisions, and no return order is made under Article 18 or inherent jurisdiction absent evidence that such return is in KL's best interests.

Court Disposition

Hague Convention applications for summary return dismissed; no return order made under inherent jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Directions to proceed with cross-residence applications and firm contact arrangements for KL pending hearing.