Supreme Court of United Kingdom: The present issue was brought by a woman against her husband for the summary return of their 4 children from England to Spain pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 and Section 1(2) of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 which provides that a child wrongfully removed from/retained outside of their place of habitual residence shall promptly be returned to it. The Father applied for their elder daughter aged 13 years to be joined as a party so that she might be separately represented, which the High Court refused. The principal question in this appeal is whether the courts may, in making a determination of habitual residence in relation to an adolescent child who has resided for a short time in a place under the care of one of his or her parents, have regard to that child’s state of mind during the period of residence there. It was held that the question whether a child’s state of mind is relevant to whether that child has acquired habitual residence in the place he or she is living cannot be restricted only to adolescent children. The logic making an adolescent’s state of mind relevant applies equally to the younger children, although the answer to the factual question may be different in their case. However, the Court also noted that what can be relevant to whether an older child shares her parent’s habitual residence is not the child’s “wishes”, “views”, “intentions” or “decisions” but her state of mind during the period of her residence with that parent. The Supreme Court also set aside the finding of habitual residence in respect of the three younger children so that the issue can be reconsidered in relation to all four children. [In the matter of LC (Children); In the matter of LC (Children) (No 2) [2014] UKSC 1, decided on January 15, 2014]
Posted on: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:57:32 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015