V v V (Abduction: No Consent)

V v V (Abduction: No Consent)

The children remained habitually resident in Australia; there was no clear and unequivocal consent by the mother to permanent relocation to England; the father failed to prove consent or acquiescence. Decisions about the children's future are to be made by the Australian court.

Parties
Applicant: V; Respondent: V
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Family / Judgment
Outcome
Summary return of the three children to Australia directed.
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Consent Under Hague Convention, Acquiescence, Summary Return of Children
Family Law International Child Abduction Habitual Residence Consent Under Hague Convention Acquiescence Summary Return of Children

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

V

Applicant

V

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were the children habitually resident in Australia or England at the time of proceedings?
  2. 2 Did the mother consent to the children relocating permanently to England?
  3. 3 Did the mother acquiesce to the children remaining in England?

Ratio Decidendi

The children remained habitually resident in Australia; there was no clear and unequivocal consent by the mother to permanent relocation to England; the father failed to prove consent or acquiescence. Decisions about the children's future are to be made by the Australian court.

Court Disposition

Summary return of the three children to Australia directed.

Orders

  • The children are to be returned to Australia.
  • The court will hear from the parties regarding timing and arrangements for return.