VK v LK

VK v LK

The evidence did not demonstrate clear and unequivocal consent by the mother to the child's relocation for three years, nor did she acquiesce to his retention in England. The child remained habitually resident in Russia at the time of wrongful retention. The Article 13(a) defences failed, and the requirements for summary return under Article 3 were met.

Parties
Applicant: VK; Respondent: LK
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction (1980 Hague Convention) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Order for return of the child to Russia
Legal Topics
Consent Under Hague Convention, Acquiescence, Habitual Residence, Summary Return, Discretion Under Hague Convention
Family Law International Child Abduction Consent Under Hague Convention Acquiescence Habitual Residence Summary Return Discretion Under Hague Convention

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VK

Applicant

LK

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction (1980 Hague Convention) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mother consented to the child's relocation to England for three years
  2. 2 Whether the mother acquiesced in the child's retention in England
  3. 3 Whether the child was habitually resident in Russia at the time of alleged wrongful retention

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not demonstrate clear and unequivocal consent by the mother to the child's relocation for three years, nor did she acquiesce to his retention in England. The child remained habitually resident in Russia at the time of wrongful retention. The Article 13(a) defences failed, and the requirements for summary return under Article 3 were met.

Court Disposition

Order for return of the child to Russia

Orders

  • The child Z shall be returned to Russia.
  • Welfare arrangements, including contact and any application by the father for Z to live with him in England, are to be determined by the Russian jurisdiction.