International family law covers many areas including child abduction. Child Abduction is where where a person who is connected to a child takes them away from their country of habitual residence without the permission of either those with parental responsibility or the courts.
Most commonly child abduction this takes place following a separation or divorce and is carried out by the parent who has not been awarded custody of the child. An increase in cross cultural marriages, higher divorce rates and changes in immigration laws have led to a rise in international child custody disputes. Some of these disputes have resulted in parental child abduction as parents seek to take their children out of the country without permission.
A recent case on such an issue is that of RV v VT (2018). The father in this case was born in Latvia whereas the mother was of Russian origin but moved to Latvia at an early age.
Both the mother and the parent met in 2019 in a city of Latvia and shortly after meeting commenced their relationship. The child was born in Latvia in 2014 at which time the parents were living with the maternal grandparents. In October 2014 the parents decided to move to the United Kingdom with the child and reside with the mothers brother who was living in England. The mother says this was a decision to move permanently to the United Kingdom, which is denied by the father who alleged there was no such agreement or any decisions surrounding living in the United Kingdom permanently.
The family settled in England and remained here for nearly 4 years. The child was registered with a doctor, a dentist and with a nursery in England. The father obtained employment whilst the mother looked after the child for the first year.
The parents claimed that their relationship was unstable. The family were living with the maternal uncle and were joined by maternal grandmother. The parents decided to get their own home in early 2016 at which time the mother was also employed. The parents made arrangements for shared care of the child.
In September 2016 they separated and lived separately with the child spending time with both of them. The mother claimed that separation led to financial struggles with no support from father. The mother therefore proposed the child should go to the maternal grandmother back in Latvia “for a few months” with no set date being agreed.
The dispute between the parents is whether this was intended to be permanent or whether it was agreed as a short term measure. The father claimed this move was to be permanent. The mother travelled to Latvia in February and stayed with the child for four days before leaving the child with the maternal grandmother.
In March the father travelled to Latvia and notified the mother that he was going for two weeks. Upon his arrival he realised how much he had missed his son and decided to remain in Latvia without advising the mother of this. The father took care of the child and registered the child as living with him as well as agreeing with the maternal grandparent that the child would spend weekends with them.
The mother found out about the fathers intention to remain in Latvia from the maternal grandmother but did not challenge this or discuss with the father. The mother travelled to Latvia and bought the child back to England in July 2018. The father stated the mother verbally agreed the child would stay with the mother for a few days before returning the child to his care on the 4th July 2018.
The father made an application under the Hague Convention for Child Abduction for the child to be returned to Latvia. This convention seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of abduction and retention across international boundaries by providing a procedure to bring about their prompt return.
The mother opposed the application for the following reasons:
When allowing the application, the judge was of the view that the child integrated into life in Latvia which had many familiar family members. The child was also making friends in nursery and having contact with maternal grandmother as well as being visited by the mother and having contact over skype. The child was found to be habitually resident in Latvia at the time of the removal.
The judge also stated it was clear the mother knew the father did not consent to the removal of their child. The mother accepted she did not tell the father about her plan to travel back to the UK because she “expected him to cause a scene”, and therefore was aware the father would not consent.
In relation to the mothers argument that returning the child would place him at risk of psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation and he would be in unfamiliar surroundings with unfamiliar people. The judge ruled this was factually incorrect given it was the mother herself, who initially placed the child in Latvia in February 2018.
Dismissing the mothers defences, the Court ruled that the child should be returned to Latvia within 14 days.
Child abduction is a very serious matter, and should you be experiencing this you can contact our family specialists on 0330 094 5880 to discuss your options or let us call you back. Did you know we not only have family lawyers in Newcastle but in Manchester, Oxford, Northampton and London so we can never be too far from being within local reach of our client’s.
We are a team of family law and divorce experts with years of experience in dealing with all areas of family law matters.
We are not part of a firm of Solicitors, do not undertake legal reserved actives unless permitted and are therefore entirely independent.
Please subscribe to our mailing list.
