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.
[1 ] The petitioner is the father of the child who is the subject of dispute. He raised proceedings under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 seeking an order for the return of said child in terms of Article 12 of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The respondent, who is the mother of the said child, opposed the petition. There was preliminary procedure in March 2006, including an order that further evidence, including oral evidence, be heard. The case came before me for a second hearing on 20 April 2006 .
[2 ] Under and in terms of section 1(2) of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 and Schedule 1, the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction signed at the Hague on 25 October 1980 , has the force of law within the United Kingdom . It is provided inter alia :
a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and
b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.
The rights of custody mentioned in sub-paragraph a) above, may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State.
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.