OZ v ML & Ors

OZ v ML & Ors

The children were habitually resident in England and Wales at the date of alleged retention (30 December 2022), so the Hague Convention does not apply. Even if habitual residence were Kazakhstan, return would expose the children to grave risk of psychological harm and intolerable situation due to coercive and controlling behaviour by OZ, and valid objections by M and A. Protective measures in Kazakhstan are inadequate. Court exercises discretion to refuse return order.

Parties
Applicant: OZ; 1st Respondent: ML; 2nd Respondent: MK; 3rd Respondent: AK; 4th Respondent: XK; 5th Respondent: YK
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Application Under Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 / 1980 Hague Convention / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Summary Return Order, Child's Objections, Grave Risk of Harm, Coercive Control, Domestic Violence, Jurisdiction, Sibling Separation
Family Law International Child Abduction Habitual Residence Summary Return Order Child's Objections Grave Risk of Harm Coercive Control Domestic Violence +2 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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OZ

Applicant

ML

1st Respondent

MK

2nd Respondent

AK

3rd Respondent

XK

4th Respondent

YK

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 / 1980 Hague Convention / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was there a wrongful retention by ML and what was the date?
  2. 2 Were the children habitually resident in Kazakhstan at the time of alleged retention?
  3. 3 Do M and A object to return?

Ratio Decidendi

The children were habitually resident in England and Wales at the date of alleged retention (30 December 2022), so the Hague Convention does not apply. Even if habitual residence were Kazakhstan, return would expose the children to grave risk of psychological harm and intolerable situation due to coercive and controlling behaviour by OZ, and valid objections by M and A. Protective measures in Kazakhstan are inadequate. Court exercises discretion to refuse return order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No return order made under Hague Convention
  • Further welfare orders to be determined after submissions