L (a child) Abduction Turkey Protective Measures under Hague 96

Mother failed to establish Article 13(b) defence; protective measures available in Turkey are sufficient to protect mother and child. Return of child is mandatory under Hague Convention 1980.

Parties: Applicant: TAAS; 1st Respondent: FMS; 2nd Respondent: Norfolk County Council
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 01 September 2017
Procedural Posture: Hague Convention Child Abduction / Final Judgment
Outcome: Child L ordered to be returned to Turkey.
Legal Topics: International Child Abduction, Protective Measures, Habitual Residence, Article 13(b) Defence, Children Act 1989, Hague Convention 1980, Hague Convention 1996

Family Law International Law Child Protection International Child Abduction Protective Measures Habitual Residence Article 13(b) Defence Children Act 1989 +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

TAAS

Applicant

FMS

1st Respondent

Norfolk County Council

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Hague Convention Child Abduction / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Should the child L be returned to Turkey under the Hague Convention 1980?
2 Are protective measures in Turkey sufficient to protect the mother and child from alleged domestic violence?
3 Does Article 13(b) defence of grave risk/intolerable situation apply?

Ratio Decidendi

Mother failed to establish Article 13(b) defence; protective measures available in Turkey are sufficient to protect mother and child. Return of child is mandatory under Hague Convention 1980.

Court Disposition

Child L ordered to be returned to Turkey.

Orders

Father to pay for L and mother's return tickets to Istanbul.
Father not to instigate or support criminal proceedings in Turkey against mother for abduction.