Re A
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MRS. JUSTICE PARKER |
| Judgment Date | 17 March 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 710 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No. EP07P00173 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 17 March 2009 |
[2009] EWHC 710 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
In The High Court of Justice Family Division
Principal Registry
Mrs. Justice Parker
(In Private)
Mr/Mrs Justice Sitting In Chambers at Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, Wc2A 2Ll
In The Matter of (a Minor)
And In The Matter of the Inherent Jurisdiction
And In The Matter of the Supreme Court Act 1981
Case No. EP07P00173
MR. E. DEVEREUX (instructed by Bowles & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Applicant Father.
MR. J. REDDISH (instructed by Anthony Louca Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Mother.
UPON hearing counsel for the Applicant father/mother, (“the father”/ “the mother”), and counsel for the Respondent mother/father, (“the mother”/ “the father”)
MRS. JUSTICE PARKER:
These proceedings are confidential and the names of the parties and the child are not to be disclosed.
The parents of “A” are parties to proceedings about her care and her future brought pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction. The mother originates from outside the UK and the father is Greek but settled in England. In 2007 the mother removed “A” from this jurisdiction to the mother's country of origin. The father involved the English Central Authority and “A” was eventually returned by agreement. In 2008, the mother again removed “A” to her country of origin. The court of that country ordered that “A” be returned to England pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction 1980. The mother then made an unsuccessful application to the court of that country seeking to overturn the decision. That application inevitably delayed the return of the child. “A” has now been returned to England and is presently in the care of the father. The mother followed her back to England.
It is accepted by the mother that both removals were wrongful within the meaning of the Hague Convention 1980.
The issue before me was whether “A” should spend substantial periods of time with the mother under an interim order whilst all the many issues in this case are investigated. The father fears that unless safeguards are put in place the mother may remove “A” again. The mother says that she has no such intention, but accepts that the father has a legitimate concern that needs to be allayed.
The parties have now agreed that when the child is with the mother, the mother should be subject for the time being to a curfew supported by electronic tagging. On this basis, the parents have agreed that the child will spend substantial periods with each parent in the interim. The availability of tagging arrangements in appropriate cases in family proceedings is apparently not widely known and counsel have asked that I describe them for the assistance of the profession.
In Re C (Abduction: Interim Directions: Accommodation by Local Authority) [2003] EWHC 3065 (Fam), [2004] 1 FLR 653, Mr. Justice Singer said:
“[Para.45] An innovation in this case was the mother's suggestion that the package of protective measures should include a direction, pursuant to s.5 of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, that she undergo electronic tagging. I take the view that such a direction may be made under that provision if it is necessary 'for the purpose of securing the welfare of the child' and/or 'to prevent changes in the circumstances relevant to the determination of the application'”.
“[Para.46] Although in future...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
X (Children) and Another
...families but there are, as will be seen, many points of similarity, so it is convenient to give one judgment. The background – the X case 2 This case involves four children: X1, a boy born in July 2002, X2, a girl born in September 2008, X3, a girl born in August 2010, and X4 a boy born i......
-
Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Nobu Su (ala Su Hsin Chi; aka Nobu Moritomo)
...risk”. 68 The issue of electronic monitoring was considered again by Parker J in Re A (Family Proceedings: Electronic Tagging) [2009] EWHC 710 (Fam), another child abduction case. This was another case in which the parties had agreed that there should be tagging. At [7], Parker J noted tha......