PH (AP),Re An Order for the Return of a Child under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 [2014] ScotCS CSOH_79 (30 April 2014)

PH (AP),Re An Order for the Return of a Child under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 [2014] ScotCS CSOH_79 (30 April 2014)

The court refused to order the return of the child to Norway because the child, almost 14, was intelligent, mature, and her objections to return were strong, clear, and authentically her own. Her desire to remain in Scotland with her father and brother, and to continue her education there, was rational and grounded in reality. The welfare considerations and the child's wishes outweighed the general policy of the Convention in this case.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSOH_79
Parties
Petitioner: P H (AP); Respondent: Respondent (name not specified)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Petition for Return of a Child Under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (hague Convention) / Final Judgment After Evidentiary Hearing
Outcome
petition refused
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Child Custody, Hague Convention, Wrongful Retention, Child's Objections, Judicial Discretion
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Child Custody Hague Convention Wrongful Retention Child's Objections Judicial Discretion

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P H (AP)

Petitioner

Respondent (name not specified)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Return of a Child Under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (hague Convention) / Final Judgment After Evidentiary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Article 13 of the Hague Convention to refuse to order the return of the child to Norway, given the child's objections and maturity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to order the return of the child to Norway because the child, almost 14, was intelligent, mature, and her objections to return were strong, clear, and authentically her own. Her desire to remain in Scotland with her father and brother, and to continue her education there, was rational and grounded in reality. The welfare considerations and the child's wishes outweighed the general policy of the Convention in this case.

Court Disposition

petition refused

Orders

  • Refuse the prayer of the petition for return of the child to Norway.
  • Sustain the respondent's plea-in-law.