ERG, Re Orders Under the Child Abduction & Custody Act 1985

[1] The question raised in these proceedings is whether an interim residence order pronounced by a court in the home state in favour of a parent living with the child in the United Kingdom supersedes a Hague Convention request by the central authority of the home state for return of the child. My opinion is that the order does supersede the request for return. Accordingly I shall refuse the Petition for a return order under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985.

[2] By his Petition lodged in the Court of Session on 15 March 2011 , ERG, resident in Latvia , applied for orders for the return to Latvia of his three-year old daughter EEG. EEG currently resides in Perth , Scotland , with her mother EAG. The mother is the Respondent to the Petition. The Petitioner, the Respondent and the child are citizens and "habitual residents" of the Republic of Latvia . The Petition is founded on a Hague Convention return request said to have been made by "the central requesting authority for Latvia ".

[3] The Republic of Latvia and the United Kingdom are signatories of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 ["the Hague Convention"]. The Hague Convention has domestic effect in the United Kingdom by virtue of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. The Hague Convention came into force between the Republic of Latvia and the United Kingdom on 1 October 2003 . [The Child Abduction and Custody (Parties to Conventions) (Amendment No 2) Order 2011 SI 2011/1081.]

[4] Latvia acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004 . Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility ["Brussels II bis "] has effect in Latvia and the United Kingdom . In cases of wrongful removal and retention of children Brussels II bis applies the Hague Convention as complemented by the Regulation. In terms of Article 60 Brussels II bis takes precedence as between participating member states.

[5] The parties married in Latvia on 14 July 2007 . EEG was born on 23 October 2007 . The parties finally separated on, at latest, 1 January 2009 . Following the separation the child lived with the Respondent.