RV v VT

RV v VT

At the date of removal, the child was habitually resident in Latvia, integrated into family and nursery life, and removal by the mother was wrongful under the Hague Convention. No valid Article 13(b) defence was established.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: RV; Respondent: VT
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction (hague Convention) / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application granted; summary return ordered.
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Summary Return, Hague Convention, Parental Responsibility
Family Law International Child Abduction Habitual Residence Summary Return Hague Convention Parental Responsibility

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RV

Applicant

VT

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction (hague Convention) / Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the child habitually resident in Latvia at the time of removal?
  2. 2 Was the removal wrongful under the Hague Convention?
  3. 3 Are any Article 13(b) defences (grave harm/intolerable situation/acquiescence) established?

Ratio Decidendi

At the date of removal, the child was habitually resident in Latvia, integrated into family and nursery life, and removal by the mother was wrongful under the Hague Convention. No valid Article 13(b) defence was established.

Court Disposition

Application granted; summary return ordered.

Orders

  • The child A is to be returned to Latvia within 14 days.
  • Parties are invited to discuss practical arrangements for the return.