Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
�IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD ABDUCTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CUSTODY ORDERS ACT 1991
������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������[2021 No.3 HLC]
2.1������ The Respondent Aunt and Uncle have no custody rights in respect of Bill who, as a one-year-old, began living with them in late 2019 with the express consent of the child�s mother, whom I will refer to as the Mother for the purposes of the judgment.� The Applicant, whether or not he was aware of the arrangement to move the child in 2019, had no communication with the Respondents and made no direct objection to them before October of 2020.�
2.4������ On the 2 nd of September Bill was brought by the Applicant to his maternal grandparents and he told them that he was unable to care for the child.� The child was said to be in his nappy and without possessions such as a buggy or other clothing.� This is disputed.
2.5������ While willing, the grandparents were unable to offer full time care to the boy for long.� The Respondent Uncle has averred that the Mother was not permitted to visit the child while he remained in his grandparents� care, in September 2019, but the Mother disputes this.�
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.