R (Child), Re

R (Child), Re

The appeal was dismissed because the district judge correctly applied the welfare principle and checklist, and there is no legal basis for a presumption of summary return in domestic abduction cases; each case must be decided on its individual facts with welfare as the paramount consideration.

Parties
Appellant: H's father; Respondent: H's mother; Intervenor: International Centre for Family Law, Policy and Practice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Second Appeal, Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Custody, Internal Relocation, Domestic Abduction, Welfare Principle
Family Law Child Custody Internal Relocation Domestic Abduction 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H's father

Appellant

H's mother

Respondent

International Centre for Family Law, Policy and Practice

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Second Appeal, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should summary return be the standard response in domestic abduction cases?
  2. 2 Did the district judge err in applying the welfare principle and checklist under the Children Act 1989?

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the district judge correctly applied the welfare principle and checklist, and there is no legal basis for a presumption of summary return in domestic abduction cases; each case must be decided on its individual facts with welfare as the paramount consideration.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order for summary return of the child to Kent.
  • Child to remain with mother in North East pending final hearing.