In re Max [2014] 2 JLR 413 (01 October 2014)
- Citation
- [2014] 2 JLR 413
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Child Abduction Under Hague Convention / Judgment
More details
- Posture
- Child Abduction Under Hague Convention / Judgment
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the father had clearly and unequivocally consented to the removal of the child to Jersey, as evidenced by his statutory declaration, oral consent, and purchase of one-way tickets, and therefore the court was not obliged to order the return of the child under Article 13(a) of the Hague Convention.
Court disposition
Application for return of child refused
Orders
- Child not to be returned to country of habitual residence
02
Material facts
Parties
Max
ChildMother of Max
ApplicantFather of Max
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Child Abduction Under Hague Convention / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the court is obliged to return a child under the Hague Convention if a parent consented to removal
- 02
What constitutes clear and unequivocal consent under Article 13(a) of the Hague Convention
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The mother argued that the father had clearly and unequivocally consented to the removal of the child to Jersey, both in writing and by his actions.
- Respondent
- The father contested that he did not consent to the removal of the child from the overseas country to Jersey.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Article 13(a)
Under Article 13(a) of the Hague Convention, the court is not obliged to order the return of a child if the parent has clearly and unequivocally consented to the removal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the father had clearly and unequivocally consented to the removal of the child to Jersey, as evidenced by his statutory declaration, oral consent, and purchase of one-way tickets, and therefore the court was not obliged to order the return of the child under Article 13(a) of the Hague Convention.
Obiter and limits
- Consent under Article 13(a) can be written, verbal, or inferred from actions.
Court disposition
Application for return of child refused
- Child not to be returned to country of habitual residence
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [
DONATE ] Jersey Law Reports You are here:
BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Law Reports >> In re Max [2014] 2 JLR 413 (01 October 2014) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2014/JLR142413.html Cite as: [2014] 2 JLR 413 [ New search ] [ Help ] In re Max 2014 (2) JLR 413 (01 October 2014) Family Law-children-abduction by parent-consent-court not obliged under Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, art. 13(a) to return child to country of habitual residence if parent clearly and unequivocally consented to removal-consent can be written, verbal or inferred from actions-father consented to mother's removal of child from overseas country to Jersey, by making statutory declaration permitting it; consenting orally; and purchasing one-way tickets for her and child The document you wish to view is available to registered users or can be purchased as a PDF. To purchase this document in PDF format or alternatively to Register to purchase membership go to the Jersey Law website via this link: 2014 (2) JLR 413 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2014/JLR142413.html
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.