In the matter of F (A Child)

In the matter of F (A Child)

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge failed to comply with the mandatory obligation under Article 11(2) of Brussels II Revised Regulation to ensure the child was heard, a fundamental procedural deficiency that required the case to be remitted for further consideration. The judge's rejection of the mother's defences under Article 13(a) and 13(b) was upheld as properly directed and supported by evidence.

Parties
Appellant: Father; Respondent: Mother
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Child Abduction) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal; Application for Permission to Appeal, Extension of Time, and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted for further consideration; permission to appeal and extension of time granted; application for permission to intervene refused.
Legal Topics
Hague Convention 1980, Brussels II Revised Regulation, Child's Right to Be Heard, Acquiescence, Grave Risk of Harm, Procedural Obligations in Child Abduction Cases
Family Law International Child Abduction Hague Convention 1980 Brussels II Revised Regulation Child's Right to Be Heard Acquiescence Grave Risk of Harm Procedural Obligations in Child Abduction Cases

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Appellant

Mother

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Child Abduction) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal; Application for Permission to Appeal, Extension of Time, and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred by failing to ensure the child was heard as required by Article 11(2) of Brussels II Revised Regulation
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge properly rejected the mother's defences under Article 13(a) (acquiescence) and Article 13(b) (grave risk of harm/intolerability) of the Hague Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge failed to comply with the mandatory obligation under Article 11(2) of Brussels II Revised Regulation to ensure the child was heard, a fundamental procedural deficiency that required the case to be remitted for further consideration. The judge's rejection of the mother's defences under Article 13(a) and 13(b) was upheld as properly directed and supported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted for further consideration; permission to appeal and extension of time granted; application for permission to intervene refused.

Orders

  • Application for permission to intervene refused.
  • Application for extension of time granted.