In CB v CB, the woman, an Australian citizen living in the UK, had a child with a British man. After their separation, the boy lived with his mother in the UK, and had contact with his father. The mother also travelled extensively, taking the boy with her. In 2010, the father agreed to the boy staying with his mother in Australia for a year. She later requested a further year in the country and she agreed to this, but reluctantly. When she later requested a further two years, however, he refused. At the end of a Christmas visit, the father refused to send his son back to Australia, saying he wished to stay in the UK with him.
The mother than came back to the UK and filed a claim for her son’s return under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, an international treaty governing the return of children from one country to another.
Family Division judge Mr Justice Peter Jackson concluded that the boy’s habitual residence for legal purposes was Australia, and the father had, therefore, on the face of it been wrong to keep in the UK at the end of the trip. However, the boy expressed a clear wish not to go back to Australia with his mother and his legal guardian argued that he was sufficiently mature to express rational and balanced views, and the court should take these into consideration.
The judge concluded that while Australia was technically the boy’s habitual residence, he not have strong ties to the country and the father’s decision had been made as a result of complex family circumstances which should not be treated as an abduction. He therefore dismissed the woman’s application for her son’s return and said his welfare should in future be considered by the English courts.
Photo by Salihan Laugesen via Flickr under a Creative Commons licence