BDU v BDT

BDU v BDT

The mother failed to discharge the burden under Article 13(b): she did not identify clear and compelling evidence of a grave risk to the child or an intolerable situation on return; the District Judge’s factual findings that the alleged violence was not shown to be of the requisite gravity and that German protective measures and the father’s undertakings could mitigate risk were open on the evidence and not displaced on appeal; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the return order stands with an additional undertaking for daily access.

Citation
[2013] SGHC 106
Parties
Appellant (mother): BDU; Respondent (father): BDT
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
15 May 2013
Case Number
Originating Summons No 236 of 2012 (Registrar's Appeal Subordinate Courts No 157 of 2012)
Procedural Posture
International Child Abduction Act / Hague Convention Return Application / High Court Appeal From District Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Article 13(b) Exception, Return of Child, Habitual Residence, Grave Risk, Protective Measures and Undertakings
Source Language
English
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Conflict of Laws Article 13(b) Exception Return of Child Habitual Residence Grave Risk +1 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BDU

Appellant (mother)

BDT

Respondent (father)

Procedural Posture

International Child Abduction Act / Hague Convention Return Application / High Court Appeal From District Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether child was wrongfully retained
  2. 2 Whether child’s habitual residence had changed
  3. 3 Whether Article 13(b) exception (grave risk or intolerable situation) applied

Ratio Decidendi

The mother failed to discharge the burden under Article 13(b): she did not identify clear and compelling evidence of a grave risk to the child or an intolerable situation on return; the District Judge’s factual findings that the alleged violence was not shown to be of the requisite gravity and that German protective measures and the father’s undertakings could mitigate risk were open on the evidence and not displaced on appeal; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the return order stands with an additional undertaking for daily access.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Return order affirmed: son E to be returned to Germany.
  • Mother to hand over son and travel documents to father by 28 August 2012 at 6pm at father’s counsel’s office.