Re A. (Infants)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL,LORD JUSTICE MEGAW |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 1970 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1970] EWCA Civ J0507-3 |
| Date | 07 May 1970 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 1970 A No. 840 |
[1970] EWCA Civ J0507-3
In The Court of Appeal
On Appeal from the High Court of Justice
Chancery Division
Group A
Revised
Lord Justice Harman
Lord Justice Russell
and
Lord Justice Megaw
MR. PETER MILLETT (instructed by Shepheards & Bingley, Solicitors. London) appeared on behalf of the Defendant (Appellant).
MR. J.A.R. FINLAY (Instructed by Church, Adams, Tatham & Co. Solicitores, Loudon) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff (Respondent).
Lord JUSTICE HAHMAN: is a dispute between the father and mother of two little girls as to their immediate future, oars and control. The pasties are two comparatively young people and the children are the offspring of their marriage, which was celebrated in England in 1961. The mother was then a trainee nurse and the father was also doing some medical studies at an English hospital.
After the marriage the father was commissioned in the R.A.M.C. and went to Germany for some time, coming hook to England in 1963. The elder child was born in 1964 and in 1965 the two young people went to Jersey, the wife's parents, who are wealthy retired people, haying gone there in about 1957 and haying settled there.
The wife's parents bought a house which they conveyed into the wife's name) presumably it was a gift to her but one does not know. The second girl was born there in 1966.
The marriage was not very smooth at any time, but troubles became acute in 1969. The wife had an affair with another man; there was a brawl between the husband and the other man and she left at the beginning of January and went away from the house which had been put into her name, to her parents' house with her children.
Both sides consulted Jersey advocates as to their domestic differences; there were discussions which were of a comparatively inconclusive nature between them and their advisers as a result of which it seems to have been agreed that provisionally she should have care and control of the children pending matrimonial proceedings — apparently the wife desired a divorce because she was very much in love with the other man, although apparently he did not intend to marry her. It was also agreed that when the divorce went through, he would have the permanent care and control of the children.
While these disputes were proceeding it was proposed, I think by a Childrens Cava Officer on the Island, that it would be batter to get the children out of the way of the trouble and that they should go and visit their paternal grandparents at Winchester, where there wee ample accommodation for them. On 5th January they ease to "England, the understanding on both sides being that they should go bask at the end of the month.
Meanwhile, at the suggestion of the Jersey advisers, a document was drawn up by the husband for signature by the wife, in which he demanded various terms as to how she should live, with whom she was to associate and so forth, during the interim period before divorce or other proceedings came to fruition. That agreement was put before the mother on 27th January but she was unwilling to sign it. It is fair to say that is contained fairly extreme restrictions on her, and certainly by the time January came to an end, when the children were due to go back, she had not signed it. The father, owing to things that had been said to him (whether justifiable or not I do not pause to consider) ease to the conclusion that the wife would not keep her word even if she gave it and in the circumstances he was not willing that the children should go back to her in Jersey, so they did not go back on 20th January.
But on 5th February the mother did unwillingly sign this document. She sent it to the father with a note in her own hand, which I think at this juncture I need not read out. The children were not sent bock, the husband having changed his mind and decided that he was not going to send them back to Jersey because he did not trust his wife. On 9th February the mother came back to England; she telephoned the father asking him whether he objected to hergoing to see the children at Winchester. He said he did not object and on the 9th February she took a oar and went to Winchester. She tools with her three detectives she said she only wanted one, but at any rate she had three and she intended to take charge of the children and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forester (Kevin Leighton) v Michele Ann Strong-Forester
...is not child stealing as is contemplated by S.69 of the Offence Against the Person Act - a parent cannot be prosecuted under S. 69. 23 In Re A (infants) (1970) 3 All ER 184 Harman, L J addressed the meaning of 'kidnapping' in this context. In that case, by agreement between the parents, th......
-
Re v (Infants)
...there was no breach of any order of a Foreign Court and the children were in fact returned and the merits were considered; In Re. A [1970]3 All E.R. 184 where an investigation on the merits was held: In Re. L [1974]1 W.L.R. 250 where it was held that where the court embarked on a full scale......
-
Forrester v Strong-forrester
...is not child stealing as is contemplated by S.69 of the Offence Against the Person Act - a parent cannot be prosecuted under S. 69. 22 In Re A (infants) (1970) 3 All ER 184 Harman, L J addressed the meaning of ‘kidnapping' in this context. In that case, by agreement between the parents, the......