Blog de Sustraccion Internacional de Menores

Noticias de Actualidad en Sustracción de menores por la "Abogados y Mediadores Familiares Especialistas en Mediación Internacional y Secuestro Parental de Menores". España y Argentina whatsapp Tel: +54 911 5347-5033 www.estudiolapampa.com

HIGH COURT refuses to return children wrongfully removed from England as they have become well settled in Ireland.

The father of two children who were wrongfully removed from their habitual residence in England in July 2015 has had his application for their return pursuant to The Hague Convention refused in the High Court.

Whilst it was accepted that the mother had engaged in subterfuge and concealment in respect of the removal of the children, and that the actions of the mother in failing to come clean at the outset about her removal of the children to Ireland on a permanent basis contributed to the delay in the case, Justice Reynolds exercised the discretion of the Court in refusing the application as she was satisfied that the children were well settled in Ireland.

Background

The Court heard that a nine-year-old girl and six-year-old boy were brought to Ireland by their mother, S.E.O, in July 2015, in circumstances where the father was not told that the children were being removed from the jurisdiction of England and Wales, and where the mother continuously lied about their living situation.

In proceedings commenced 18 months after the wrongful removal, the father, P.E.O, sought the return of the children to England and Wales pursuant to the provisions of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 (The Hague Convention), the provisions of the Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act 1991 and the Matrimonial and parental judgments: jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement, Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 (the “Brussels II bis Regulation”).

Well settled

It was contended on behalf of the mother that the children were now well settled within the jurisdiction, and the Court was asked to exercise its discretion in this regard.

Justice Reynolds considered the following authorities: P. v. B. (No. 2) [1999] 4 I.R. 185; P.L. v. E.C. [2009] 1 I.R. 1; and Z.D. v. K.D. [2008] 4 I.R. 751. She also had regard to the decision in Cannon v. Cannon [2004] EWCA Civ 1330 in which “the impact of subterfuge and delay on the settlement of a child were considered in some detail in a useful analysis”.

Accepting that there was clear evidence that the mother engaged in subterfuge or concealment in respect of the removal of the children, and that the actions of the mother in failing to come clean at the outset about her removal of the children to Ireland on a permanent basis contributed to the delay in this case; Justice Reynolds stated that she was also “mindful of the fact that had the applicant acted upon his suspicions in a more timely fashion, that the delay in the commencement of the proceedings would be considerably less”.

A report was also produced for the Court in which a clinical psychologist obtained the views of both children – both children clearly expressed the views that they were much happier here in Ireland and did not want to go back to England. Furthermore, the children were concerned that their father had moved away from the area where they had resided and where they had attended school. Having regard to the principles to be applied in considering the objections of a child, the Court was entitled to take into account their views.

Given the impact of this amount of time on the two young children who are now settled in Ireland, Justice Reynolds was of the view that discretion should be exercised against returning the children to the United Kingdom.

Justice Reynolds explained “…whilst the major objective of the Convention is to secure a swift return to the country of origin, it is clear on the facts of this case that this can no longer be met”.

Conclusions

Having considered all of the facts in the case, Justice Reynolds accepted that there was a wrongful removal of the children to Ireland but refused the relief sought in the exercise of the Court’s discretion in circumstances where the proceedings were commenced more than one year after the wrongful removal and where the children had become “well settled” within the jurisdiction.

by Seosamh Gráinséir for Irish Legal News

en octubre 14, 2017
Enviar por correo electrónicoEscribe un blogCompartir en XCompartir con FacebookCompartir en Pinterest
Etiquetas: asociacion clamis, child abduction, convenio de la haya 1980, derecho de familia internacional, juana rivas, mikk, retraso de justicia, sejas pardo advocats, sustraccion menores

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario

Entrada más reciente Entrada antigua Inicio
Suscribirse a: Enviar comentarios (Atom)

Juana Rivas entrega sus dos hijos a su expareja en Italia

Juana Rivas ha entregado este jueves sus dos hijos, de 12 y 4 años, a su expareja, el italiano Francesco Arcuri, en una comisaria de Ca...

  • Fight for custody in Japan: Mr. Echternach misses his children
    In Japan, many foreigners are fighting for their children, who have been taken there by divorced or separated Japanese spouses. Those a...
  • What is a PACE Alert or Airport Stop?
    The Passenger Analysis Clearance and Evacuation System (PACE) can be used to place an alert which prevents a child from leavi...
  • Capacitación Sustracción Internacional de Niñas, Niños y Adolescentes. Encuentro de Abogados 17 de Mayo 16 hs C.A.B.A.
    Los invitamos a la Capacitación sobre "Sustracción Internacional de Niñas, Niños y Adolescentes. Convenio de La Haya 1980...

Preguntas?




Entrevistas en Prensa Española

Entrevistas en Prensa Española

Entrevista Diario La Razón

Entrevista Diario La Rioja

Entrevista Escritura Pública Revista
  • Volver a la web de Asociación Clamís
sustraccion menores (108) convenio de la haya 1980 (100) sejas pardo advocats (100) child abduction (99) derecho de familia internacional (86) asociacion clamis (85) juana rivas (84) mikk (77) fundacionlibra (62) retraso de justicia (34) childfocus (29) autoridad central (24) childabduction (20) asesoramiento familias (17) prevencion sejas pardo advocats (14) cambio de residencia (13) el pais sustraccion menores (11) fundacion libra (5) el pais (2)

Notas en el Blog Sustracción Menores

  • agosto 13 - agosto 20 (10)
  • agosto 20 - agosto 27 (5)
  • agosto 27 - septiembre 3 (6)
  • septiembre 3 - septiembre 10 (4)
  • septiembre 10 - septiembre 17 (5)
  • septiembre 17 - septiembre 24 (3)
  • septiembre 24 - octubre 1 (2)
  • octubre 1 - octubre 8 (4)
  • octubre 8 - octubre 15 (3)
  • octubre 15 - octubre 22 (1)
  • octubre 22 - octubre 29 (4)
  • octubre 29 - noviembre 5 (3)
  • noviembre 5 - noviembre 12 (2)
  • noviembre 12 - noviembre 19 (3)
  • noviembre 19 - noviembre 26 (3)
  • noviembre 26 - diciembre 3 (2)
  • diciembre 3 - diciembre 10 (2)
  • diciembre 10 - diciembre 17 (1)
  • diciembre 17 - diciembre 24 (2)
  • diciembre 24 - diciembre 31 (1)
  • diciembre 31 - enero 7 (3)
  • enero 7 - enero 14 (2)
  • enero 14 - enero 21 (2)
  • enero 21 - enero 28 (3)
  • enero 28 - febrero 4 (1)
  • febrero 4 - febrero 11 (3)
  • febrero 11 - febrero 18 (3)
  • febrero 18 - febrero 25 (1)
  • febrero 25 - marzo 4 (1)
  • marzo 4 - marzo 11 (1)
  • marzo 11 - marzo 18 (3)
  • marzo 18 - marzo 25 (1)
  • marzo 25 - abril 1 (1)
  • abril 1 - abril 8 (1)
  • abril 8 - abril 15 (2)
  • abril 22 - abril 29 (1)
  • abril 29 - mayo 6 (2)
  • mayo 13 - mayo 20 (1)
  • mayo 20 - mayo 27 (1)
  • mayo 27 - junio 3 (1)
  • junio 3 - junio 10 (2)
  • junio 10 - junio 17 (2)
  • junio 24 - julio 1 (1)
  • julio 1 - julio 8 (1)
  • julio 15 - julio 22 (1)
  • julio 29 - agosto 5 (1)
  • agosto 12 - agosto 19 (1)
  • agosto 19 - agosto 26 (1)
  • septiembre 2 - septiembre 9 (1)
  • octubre 7 - octubre 14 (1)
  • octubre 21 - octubre 28 (1)
  • octubre 28 - noviembre 4 (1)
Tema Filigrana. Con la tecnología de Blogger.