WA (A Child) (Abduction) (Consent; Acquiescence; Grave Risk of Harm or Intolerability)

WA (A Child) (Abduction) (Consent; Acquiescence; Grave Risk of Harm or Intolerability)

There was no clear and unequivocal consent or acquiescence by the father to the removal or retention of the child in England. The evidence, including written communications, demonstrated the father’s consistent opposition. The mother’s departure was clandestine and deceptive. The claim of grave risk of psychological harm or intolerability due to sibling separation was not substantiated; the child was found capable of tolerating the situation, and the balance of rights favored return.

Parties
Applicant: Father; First Respondent: Mother; Second Respondent: Older Sibling (K)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction Summary Return Under Hague Convention and Brussels IIR / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for summary return granted.
Legal Topics
Consent, Acquiescence, Grave Risk of Harm, Intolerability, Sibling Separation, Summary Return, Parental Responsibility
Family Law International Child Abduction Consent Acquiescence Grave Risk of Harm Intolerability Sibling Separation Summary Return +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Applicant

Mother

First Respondent

Older Sibling (K)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction Summary Return Under Hague Convention and Brussels IIR / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the father consent to or acquiesce in the child’s removal from his home state?
  2. 2 Would a return expose the child to grave risk of psychological harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable position?

Ratio Decidendi

There was no clear and unequivocal consent or acquiescence by the father to the removal or retention of the child in England. The evidence, including written communications, demonstrated the father’s consistent opposition. The mother’s departure was clandestine and deceptive. The claim of grave risk of psychological harm or intolerability due to sibling separation was not substantiated; the child was found capable of tolerating the situation, and the balance of rights favored return.

Court Disposition

Application for summary return granted.

Orders

  • Child A must be returned to his country of habitual residence for the courts there to resolve custody and parental responsibility.