Child Abduction, PR and Permission to remove a child

?
  • Created by: Khalifaj
  • Created on: 05-06-17 22:21
R v D [1984]
states that kidnapping occurs even if you are a parent of the child so long as you did not get consent from others with parental responsibility
1 of 22
J-S (A Child) (Contact: parental responsibility) [2002]
In practice it is rare for the courts to refuse parental responsibility as seen in this case. The facts were such that the father was using his contact order to harass the mother, but the Court of Appeal still granted him parental responsibility.
2 of 22
Poel v Poel [1970]
The court considered permission to take a child out of the jurisdiction and stated that the paramount consideration was the child's welfare.
3 of 22
Nash v Nash [1973]
The courts decided to take into account the impact on the child of the mother's attitudes and behaviour if she were not allowed to go
4 of 22
Payne v Payne [2001]
Followed the decision in Nash. Is the leading case. Mother's human right to mobility, the court should not disproportionately interfere with her right to move around
5 of 22
Re AR (A Child: Relocation) [2010]
Mostyn J stated that reference should be given to the Washington Declaration on International Family Relocation. Factors to consider: is the application genuine? What are the opposing parent's reasons? What is the impact on the mother?
6 of 22
K v K (Children: Permanent Removal from Jurisdiction) [2011]
The only relevant consideration in relocation cases is the welfare of the child as paramount consideration, everything else is to be balanced to measure the impact on the child. Black LJ
7 of 22
Re F (Child [2012]
The focus is on the child's best interest in relocation cases, as it is paramount. Munby LJ
8 of 22
Re D (A Child) [2010]
Relocation was refused and the court said too much emphasis had been put on the relocating parent and no consideration were made about the remaining parent. This was supported in Re W (Children (relocation: permission) [2011]
9 of 22
The Child Abduction 1984 (s1(3)(a))
Makes it a criminal offence for anyone "connected with" a child under 16 y to take or send that child out of their country of habitual residence without appropriate consent.
10 of 22
S3(1) Children Act 1989
Parental responsibility relates to all the rights, responsibilities and duties that a parent has over a child.
11 of 22
S4(1) Children Act 1989
If the father is named on the birth certificate he will have parental responsibility automatically.
12 of 22
S4(1) Children Act 1989
Parental responsibility is also attainable by a court order or through an agreement with the mother.
13 of 22
Practice Direction (Children: removal from Jurisdiction) [1986]
Port Alert device; if the father has parental responsibility and believes an imminent threat of child abduction is taking place, police will make contact with boarder control.
14 of 22
S10(4) Children Act
States that a parent can apply for any s8 order even if they did not have parental responsibility.
15 of 22
S8(1) Children Act 1989
If the threat of child abduction is not imminent, the parent can apply for a s8 prohibited steps order to prevent it from happening.
16 of 22
S13(1)(b) Children Act 1989
If the parent wants to take the child out of the country legally, they must get written consent from others with parental responsibility.
17 of 22
S13(2) Children Act 1989
If a residence order is in place, then neither parent may remove the child without consent, for longer than 28 days.
18 of 22
Article 3(a) Hague Convention 1980 on Civil Aspects on International Child Abduction
Wrongful removal occurs where no consent was given to the removal of the child.
19 of 22
Article 12 Hague Convention 1980 on Civil Aspects on International Child Abduction
If the person ha snot brought an application within 12 months of the abduction, the judge will have a discretion whether to send back the child.
20 of 22
Article 13(a) Hague Convention 1980 on Civil Aspects on International Child Abduction
Provides a discretion where the person has consented or acquiesced to the removal
21 of 22
Article 13(b) Hague Convention 1980 on Civil Aspects on International Child Abduction
Provides a discretion where there is a grave risk of physical or psycological harm or an intolerable situation. If Article 13 is pleaded, the child's welfare may be considered as the paramount consideration of the court.
22 of 22

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

In practice it is rare for the courts to refuse parental responsibility as seen in this case. The facts were such that the father was using his contact order to harass the mother, but the Court of Appeal still granted him parental responsibility.

Back

J-S (A Child) (Contact: parental responsibility) [2002]

Card 3

Front

The court considered permission to take a child out of the jurisdiction and stated that the paramount consideration was the child's welfare.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

The courts decided to take into account the impact on the child of the mother's attitudes and behaviour if she were not allowed to go

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Followed the decision in Nash. Is the leading case. Mother's human right to mobility, the court should not disproportionately interfere with her right to move around

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law in relation to children resources »