A (A Child), Re

A (A Child), Re

The removal of A from Latvia was wrongful under the Hague Convention as the father did not consent or acquiesce, and none of the defences (acquiescence, grave risk of harm, settlement) were established. A remained habitually resident in Latvia at the relevant time, so the English court lacks jurisdiction to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Kent County Council; Mother/first Respondent: C; Father/second Respondent: G; Child/third Respondent: AG (through his Children’s Guardian Mrs Kenny-Robb)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Abduction/care Proceedings / Judgment on Hague Convention Application and Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application for return of child to Latvia granted; English court lacks jurisdiction over care proceedings.
Legal Topics
Hague Convention, Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction, Care Proceedings, Return of Child
Family Law International Child Abduction Hague Convention Habitual Residence Jurisdiction Care Proceedings Return of Child

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kent County Council

Applicant

C

Mother/first Respondent

G

Father/second Respondent

AG (through his Children’s Guardian Mrs Kenny-Robb)

Child/third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Abduction/care Proceedings / Judgment on Hague Convention Application and Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the removal of A from Latvia to England was wrongful under the Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether any defences to return under the Hague Convention are established (acquiescence, grave risk of harm, settlement)
  3. 3 Whether the English court has jurisdiction under Article 8 of B2R (habitual residence)

Ratio Decidendi

The removal of A from Latvia was wrongful under the Hague Convention as the father did not consent or acquiesce, and none of the defences (acquiescence, grave risk of harm, settlement) were established. A remained habitually resident in Latvia at the relevant time, so the English court lacks jurisdiction to determine the care proceedings. The child must be returned to Latvia.

Court Disposition

Application for return of child to Latvia granted; English court lacks jurisdiction over care proceedings.

Orders

  • A to be returned to Latvia forthwith; practical arrangements for return to be determined after submissions from parties.