JM v RM (Rev 1)

JM v RM (Rev 1)

There was no operative retention by the mother until 1 August 2020, by which time the children were habitually resident in England; therefore, the Hague Convention cannot be invoked. Alternatively, if there was retention in early May 2020, the father acquiesced in the retention and the court declined to order...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: JM; Respondent: RM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Wrongful Retention, Consent and Acquiescence, Summary Return, Discretion Under Hague Convention
Family Law International Child Abduction Habitual Residence Wrongful Retention Consent and Acquiescence Summary Return Discretion Under Hague Convention

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JM

Applicant

RM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mother committed a wrongful retention under the Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether the children were habitually resident in England at the time of retention
  3. 3 Whether the father consented to or acquiesced in the retention

Ratio Decidendi

There was no operative retention by the mother until 1 August 2020, by which time the children were habitually resident in England; therefore, the Hague Convention cannot be invoked. Alternatively, if there was retention in early May 2020, the father acquiesced in the retention and the court declined to order summary return.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Father's application for summary return under the Hague Convention is dismissed.
  • Liverpool proceedings stayed; parties encouraged to agree child arrangements.