BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> A Mother v A Father & Anor [2024] EWHC 2643 (Fam) (18 October 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2024/2643.html Cite as: [2024] EWHC 2643 (Fam) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
FAMILY DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
A MOTHER | Applicant | |
and | ||
A FATHER | First Respondent | |
and | ||
A CHILD | Second Respondent |
____________________
Mr Christopher Hames KC (directly instructed) for the First Respondent
Ms Lina Khanom (of Cafcass Legal) for the Second Respondent
Hearing dates: 9th and 10th Ocotber 2024
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Trowell:
Introduction
Summary Background
Agreements and legal issues
a. G was habitually resident in Singapore at all material times;
b. G was wrongfully retained in England and Wales on the 9th August;
c. The mother holds rights of custody for G;
d. She was exercising those rights at the time of the child's wrongful retention.
a. that the child objects (article 13);
b. that a return to Singapore would expose the child to a grave risk of harm (article 13 (b));
c. that a return breaches fundamental principles of human rights and freedoms (article 20). This argument has not been pursued and I will therefore not consider it further.
G's objection
31. I note in this context a passage towards the end of Ms Demery's report in which she said that 'G's father placed too great an emotional burden …upon him to ask him to decide with whom he wished to live, and then encourage him to tell his mother'. This refers to the facetimes between G and the mother in which he said he would be staying in this country referred to above.
Article 13 (b)
a. because the father would be imprisoned in Singapore in relation to enforcement proceedings of money orders; or
b. because the father, fearing that risk, will not return to Singapore.
a. Whether, if the father were to take a view that I consider to be irrational or inappropriate in relation to the protective measures and not return to Singapore, that would that give rise to a grave risk of exposing G to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation, and
b. The more mundane issue as to how the protective measures are put in place.
Conclusion
Mr Justice Trowell
14 October 2024
Nothing in the undertakings referred to below shall constitute any admission by either party as to any allegation made by the other, or shall be intended to bind or otherwise influence the courts of Singapore in any future determination of matters of welfare concerning the child, or child maintenance:
Not to take any further steps to pursue the respondent for any arrears of child maintenance pending the first on-notice hearing in respect of child maintenance before the Family Court in Singapore.
Cross undertakings