header-logo header-logo

Child abduction ruling

16 June 2011
Issue: 7470 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Two Norwegian children brought to the UK by their British mother must be returned, the Supreme Court has unanimously held.

In Re E (Children) (FC) [2011] UKSC 361, the court considered, for the first time, the proper interpretation of Art 13(b) of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980.

Article 13 provides three exceptions to the requirement that a child be returned, including where there is a “grave risk” that the child would be exposed to “physical or psychological harm” or placed in “an intolerable situation”.

The mother argued that this exception applied, alleging that the father was controlling and that she and the children were frightened of him. The court also heard evidence that the mother, who is the children’s primary carer, had a mental disorder which could deteriorate if she returned to Norway.

The father disputed the allegations, although he conceded that he could get angry and had killed family pets. He has given undertakings to vacate the family home and not go within 500 metres of it, and to pay household costs and child support.

Dismissing the mother’s appeal, the court confirmed that the interests of children are a “primary consideration”. It held that an Art 13(1) exception should be interpreted according to its wording and applied without extra interpretation or gloss.

Issue: 7470 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll