6. In which case was the Washington Declaration on International Family Relocation used?
Re AR (A child) (Relocation) [2010]
K v K (Children: Permanent Removal from Jurisdiction) [2011]
Payne v Payne [2001]
Re W (Children) (Relocation: Permission) [2010]
7. Re F (Children) (Return Order Appeal) [2016]
A child's mental health was the reason why the child was not returned under Art 13(b) of the Convention.
Proof of an intolerable situation does not "oblige the court to decline to order the return" of the child, it just provides a discretion.
A Child's welfare is not paramount consideration in abduction, but it may be considered.
Judges have a discretion where there is a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation.
8. B v H (Habitual residence: Wardship) [2002]
The child lost habitual residence after a day in the new country because of the parent's settled intention not to return.
Bangladeshi Holiday, where the mother did not consent to permanently moving to Bangladesh and therefore her habitual residence remained in England, which meant her baby, born in Bangladesh, also had habitual residence in England.
Removal is from where the child is habitually resident and not from the care of the parent.
A baby born on a holiday in Bangladesh had habitual residence in Bangladesh.
9. B v B [1993]
Proof of an intolerable situation does not "oblige the court to decline to order the return" of the child, it just provides a discretion. Highlights that the child's welfare is not the paramount consideration, but the return of the child.
Judges have a discretion where there is a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation.
It provides a discretion where the person consented or acquiesced to the removal.
A child's mental health was the reason why the child was not returned under Art 13(b) of the Convention.
10. Nash v Nash approach was confirmed in...
Payne v Payne [2001]
Re F (A child) [2012]
Re AR (A child) (Relocation) [2010]
K v K (Children: Permanent Removal from Jurisdiction) [2011]
11. What do you need to show for the Hague Convention to work?
Wrongful removal and PR.
Habitual residence and wrongful removal.
Habitual residence and PR.
Some connection with the child and wrongful removal.
12. parental responsibility relates to all rights, responsibilities and duties that a parent has over a child
S2(1) CA 1989
S3(1) CA 1989
S4(1) CA 1989
S1(1) CA 1989
13. R F (A minor) [1992]
Habitual residence is where the child is integrated.
You need to show habitual residence and wrongful removal for the Convention to work.
This case states the importance of habitual residence for the successful operation of the Convention.
The baby's habitual residence was held to be the same as the mother's.
14. R v D [1984]
kidnapping occurs even if you're a parent of the child so long as you didn't get consent from those with PR for child
father harassed mother using his contact order and CoA still granted him PR
kidnapping does not occur if the child gives consent
removal is that of where the child is habitually resident, not that of the care of the parent
15. Article 13 (b)
A child may be taken out of their habitual residence for up to 28 days without appropriate consent.
It provides a discretion where the person consented or acquiesced to the removal.
Judges have a discretion where there is a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation.
If the application under the Hague convention is made outside of 12 months then judges do not have to order the return of the child.
16. Article 13 (a)
If the application under the Hague convention is made outside of 12 months then judges do not have to order the return of the child.
It provides a discretion where the person consented or acquiesced to the removal.
Judges have a discretion where there is a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation.
This section explains wrongful removal.
17. A v A [2014]
Proof of an intolerable situation does not "oblige the court to decline to order the return" of the child, it just provides a discretion.
Lord Wilson referred to this case in B (A Child) [2016], stating that a parent's intention was one relevant factor in deciding when habitual residence changes but the child's level of integration is
It provides a discretion where the person consented or acquiesced to the removal.
Habitual residence is difficult to assess.
18. Guidance to deciding whether removal should be allowed - is application genuine? is it realistic? What are the reasons of the opposing parent? impact on mother? etc
Re D (A child) [2010]
Re AR (A child) (Relocation) [2010]
Re F (A child) [2012]
K v K (Children: Permanent Removal from Jurisdiction) [2011]
19. B (A child) [2016]
Habitual residence is a question of fact and can be complex.
Discusses at what point a child's habitual residence changes.
Habitual residence is important for the successful operation of the Convention.
The child lost habitual residence after a day in the new country because of the parent's settled intention not to return.
20. Courts believed the welfare of the child was the paramount consideration.
