R v A

R v A

The children were habitually resident in the USA at the time of their removal on 28 August 2012. The father did not consent to or acquiesce in their removal or retention in England. The removal was surreptitious and deceptive. The mother failed to establish any grave risk of harm if the children were returned. Therefore, the children must be returned to the USA pursuant to the Hague Convention.

Parties
Applicant: R; Respondent: A
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Hague Convention Child Abduction Proceedings / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Children to be returned to the USA pursuant to the Hague Convention.
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Habitual Residence, Parental Consent, Hague Convention, Inherent Jurisdiction

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Applicant

A

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Hague Convention Child Abduction Proceedings / Judgment After Full Hearing

  1. 1 Whether the children were habitually resident in the USA or England at the time of removal
  2. 2 Whether the father consented to or acquiesced in the removal or retention of the children in England
  3. 3 Whether there is a grave risk of harm to the children if returned to the USA

Ratio Decidendi

The children were habitually resident in the USA at the time of their removal on 28 August 2012. The father did not consent to or acquiesce in their removal or retention in England. The removal was surreptitious and deceptive. The mother failed to establish any grave risk of harm if the children were returned. Therefore, the children must be returned to the USA pursuant to the Hague Convention.

Court Disposition

Children to be returned to the USA pursuant to the Hague Convention.

Orders

  • Order for the summary return of the children to the USA.
  • If M had not been habitually resident in the USA, she would have been returned under the inherent jurisdiction.