Call us: Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm, Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm
Call local rate 0330 056 3171
Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm | Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm
Call local rate 0330 056 3171
Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm | Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm

Six year-old ‘should be returned to Northern Cyprus’

A six year-old boy should be returned to Northern Cyprus, the High Court has ruled, despite an acrimonious relationship between his parents.

In D v D, the father had applied for the boy’s  return, against the opposition of the mother.

The parents married on the Mediterranean island in 2009 and the boy, ‘D’, was born there. In 2015 the marriage broke down and the mother filed for divorce, claiming the father was violent. He denied this. The mother won care of D, with the father ordered to pay child support. A regular contact schedule was drawn up.

The following year, following a failed reconciliation, the mother took ‘D’ with her on a trip to Britain. It was initially intended as a holiday, noted Mr Justice Baker in his ruling.

“The father agreed to the trip on that basis and even drove the mother and D to the airport. On 31st August 2016, however, the mother sent a text message to the father telling him that she was not returning. Since that date, the mother and D have lived in South London with the maternal grandmother and uncle who live in this country.”

The father then flew over in an effort to get D back to Cyprus in time for the new school year, launching legal proceedings in both London and Cyprus. The mother countered by applying for a non-molestation order , which was granted. This prohibited the father from coming within 100 metres of the mother’s home or from “sending any threatening or abusive text messages or other communications to the mother, save through solicitors.”

An additional ‘prohibited steps’ order, meanwhile, forbade the father from taking D out of the country. Contact between D and his father was ordered, via Skype and in person.

At a High Court hearing in October, Mr Justice Baker noted the key facts of the case. These included:

“Both parties accept that D is and was at all material times habitually resident on Northern Cyprus and that the mother has retained him in the UK after a holiday without the consent of the father.”

The mother continued to insist that the father had threatened, harassed and been violent to her, sometimes in front of D, saying he had on one occasion even broken her leg. But he would only admit to having made threats and denied all the other claims.

She submitted examples of the threatening and abusive text messages she claimed he had sent to her and her family after she failed to return from her trip to England. These were translated into English from Turkish.

A Cafcass officer investigated the family, contacting a domestic violence shelter in the Cyprus as well as the Cypriot Police. The officer “concluded on the basis of the mother’s allegations that there was a high risk to her and her family”, explained the Judge.

In court the mother’s counsel admitted that while D had said he missed his life in Cyprus “that is not enough to justify an order for return.” He argued that the Court must benefit any benefits to be gained from a return against any physical risk to the mother and the stress she would experience if ordered to return.

The father was a “man of means” and could afford to visit his son in the UK and in the UK D could enjoy close ties with his mother’s family.

Nevertheless, Mr Justice Baker concluded that D should return, saying there were “strong arguments” in favour of this despite the animosity. These arguments included the fact that Northern Cyprus was the boy’s home and the place where he has always lived. Back on the island he would enjoy a close relationship with both parents “to whom he is obviously devoted.”

During interviews with the Cafcass officer, the Judge noted:

“He was able to articulate in a strikingly clear way for a child of his age that he wanted to return to Northern Cyprus. A return is therefore plainly in accordance with D’s wishes and feelings. Although not decisive, I find that both his wishes and feelings are significant factor in this case.”

Read the full ruling here.

The blog team at Stowe is a group of writers based across our family law offices who share their advice on the wellbeing and emotional aspects of divorce or separation from personal experience. As well as pieces from our family law solicitors, guest contributors also regularly contribute to share their knowledge.

Contact us

As the UK's largest family law firm we understand that every case is personal.


  1. John Martin says:

    As a Child Care Consultant working within Children and Family Services I am keen to keep up to date with the family law area on child custody etc.

  2. Alexy Flemming says:

    The mother and father may try to re-concile and go further with their life.

    The boy is a nice gift to them from the All-Mighty.

    Northern Cyprus is a beautiful country where the boy (and his family) can live till university. Then, he may continue in UK if the family wish to do so.
    Anyway, Judge’s decision is plausible.

  3. Six year-old ‘should be returned to Northern Cyprus’ – Marilyn Stowe Blog | News in Europa says:

    […] Source link :; Author : Publish date : 17 February 2017 | 2:24 pm Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source. […]

  4. Why when it’s not a recognized country? Fathers are out in northern cyprus who don’t pay child maintenance and the United kingdom government can’t do anything about it. Why would she have do this? Southern cyprus is different as it’s a country and recognize but northern cyprus is illegal territory.

Leave a comment

Help & advice categories


Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up for advice on divorce and relationships from our lawyers, divorce coaches and relationship experts.

What type of information are you looking for?

Privacy Policy