LC v RRL & Ors
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE RODERIC WOOD
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Civil Procedure
- Child Abduction Law
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves the mother seeking return orders for her four children to Spain under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, The Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003. The father opposed the return, arguing the children were habitually resident in England and would face harm or an intolerable situation if separated from their sibling. The court held that the children did not lose their habitual residence in England and that returning them would expose them to grave psychological harm, making the defense under Article 13(b) of the Convention applicable.
Judgment
MR. JUSTICE WOOD:
The Proceedings
These protracted proceedings are brought on behalf of a mother of four children under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 , and Schedule 1 to that Act, The Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, herein after called “The Convention”, and Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003, herein after referred to as “The Regulation.”
The Parties: Representation
The applicant mother seeks return orders The Kingdom of Spain (“Spain”) in respect of all four of the subject children pursuant to Article 12 of the Convention and Articles 10 and 11(8) of the Regulation. However, as appears below she says (at times) that she will not enforce the order against her daughter T. I shall refer again to the mother’s position in respect of T. She, that is the mother, is represented by Mr. Henry Setright QC and Mr. Devereux.
The first respondent is the father of all four children. He opposes return orders in respect of all four. He is represented by Mr. Frank Feehan QC and Mr. Christopher Hames. The three youngest children (all boys) are the second, third and fourth respondents, represented by their Guardian, Miss Sarah Vivian. Counsel instructed to argue their case is Mr. Kearney. The solicitor for the boys is Miss Logan of CAFCASS Legal. All the boys oppose return orders.
T has her own legal team. Her solicitor/guardian is Miss Helen Blackburn. She instructs on T’s behalf Mr. David Williams QC, and Miss Jacqueline Renton. T, likewise opposes a return order.
Background Agreed Facts
As will appear below in more detail, this case has previously been before Mr. Justice Cobb in May 2013. His judgment is reported at 2013 EWHC 1383 (Fam) . It has been before the Court of Appeal in August of last year. The reference for that judgment is 2013 EWCA Civ. 1058 . Finally, the United Kingdom Supreme Court heard argument on the matter in November of last year, and gave their judgment in January of this year. The reference for their judgment is 2014 UKSC1 .
For the purposes of the Supreme Court the parties prepared a statement of agreed facts and issues. In it, amongst other material, is a forensic chronology split into three parts. The hearings, and the outcome of them, before Mr. Justice Cobb are summarised in paragraphs 11 to 22. The subsequent proceedings and their outcome in the Court of Appeal are summarised in paragraphs 23 to 33. The preliminary steps in the application to the Supreme Court and the advocates’