from Holman J of his judgment in Re H (Abduction: Habitual Residence: Consent) [2000] 2 FLR 294 that practitioners and judges need to be alert to potential abduction situations in private law cases.
In Jan 2011 a father removed his child from a Hague Convention country to England and within 7 days commenced proceedings in the PRFD. Despite the fact the child had lived abroad for 4 years and that this was plain from the application forms neither solicitors, counsel, Cafcass or the District Judges identified it as a potential abduction situaiton. Appropriate provisions to serve the left behind parent were not made and the case proceeded to an final hearing where the left behind parent was not represented. A residence order was made.
The left behind parent eventually made a Hague Convention application and the case came before Holman J for final hearing.
By this point the child had been in England for over a year. Had the case been identified as an abduction situation when proceedings had been issued in England it would have been referred to the High Court and/or the ICACU and a Hague application made a year earlier.
The fact that the case had been dealt with at the PRFD and by counsel from a chambers specialising in international family law made the failure to spot the case as an abduction situation all the more alarming. Article 16 of the Hague Convention and the positive obligations on the state not to interfere with Article 8 rights impose a duty on those involved in the family justice system to recognise abduction situations and draw them to the attention of the relevant authorities.
So .... keep an eye out.
No comments:
Post a Comment