Re S (Minors) (Child Abduction: Wrongful Retention)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1994 |
| Date | 1994 |
| Court | Family Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
33 cases
-
RS v KS (Abduction: Wrongful Retention)
...was at most an un-communicated intention to retain him in the future from which she could still have resiled. ” 35 In re S (Minors) (Abduction: Wrongful Retention) [1994] Fam 70 , Wall J (as he then was) said (at 81F): “However, it seems to me that where a parent, as here, announces as p......
- Sokdave Singh Ajit Singh v Sukvender Kaur Daljit Singh
-
E (D) v B (E)
...one parent could not unilaterally change the habitual residence of a child (see In re S (Minors)(Child Abduction: Wrongful Retention) [1994] FAM 70, approved by the Court of Appeal in Re M(Abduction: Habitual Residence) [1996] 1FLR 887). As the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit poin......
-
Za and Pa v Na
...that issue of fact (see for example his approval at 892C of the decision of Wall J in Re S (Minors) (Abduction: Wrongful Retention) [1994] Fam 70, [1994] 1 FLR 82 that one of two parents cannot unilaterally change a child's habitual residence although he, or she, removes the child from his ......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
In the matter of A., English jurisprudence through American eyes: a convergence.
...See Re J (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1990] 2 AC 562, at 572 and In re S (Minors) (Child Abduction: Wrongful Retention) [1994] Fam. 70. (60.) [2013] UICSC 60 ¶ (61.) Lady Hale expounded upon this reasoning, saying: It is one thing to say that a child's integration in the place whe......