Child Abduction

Most of us are gearing up to the school summer holidays, closely followed by the annual holiday to the sun with the children. Whilst the majority of us will not forget the children’s swimsuits or sun screen as we are rushing off to the airport , many separated or divorced parents will forget the ‘’holiday rules’’ when setting off on holiday with their children . Therefore, Evolve Family Law have put together this short guide to holidays abroad with children after separation or divorce. A Guide To Holidays Abroad With Children After Separation Or Divorce 1. Agreement to the holiday If you are a separated parent, you may think that no one can dictate what you do with your children during the time you get to spend with them. However, unless you have a child arrangements order that says the children live with you, it is necessary to have either your former partner’s written agreement to the holiday abroad or a court order giving you permission to take the children abroad on holiday. 2. Be prepared If you know that you need your ex-partner’s agreement to take the children abroad on holiday then be prepared and plan in advance so you have time to agree school summer holiday dates and get agreement in writing to your planned trip abroad. If you cannot get your ex-partner’s agreement then it still pays to be organised. That is because an application will need to be made to court to secure an order to give you permission to take the children abroad on holiday. 3. Take the paperwork With luggage allowances on some aeroplanes it can be tempting to only pack the essentials. However, evidence of your former partner’s agreement to your taking the children abroad on holiday is one of those essentials. You do not need reams of paperwork, a court order or the agreement is sufficient. Even if you do not take the agreement document with you, then as a minimum you should take a text or message confirming the agreement to the overseas holiday. Why? You may take the view that as your ex-partner has been brilliant about agreeing to your taking the children for a week abroad you do not need to burden yourself with extra paperwork. However, even if your ex has not alerted the airport police to a possible child abduction (yes, it does happen just as in the films) an airport official may start to ask questions if children are travelling abroad with one parent, especially where parent and child have different surnames. Airport officials are not there to trap travelling dads but to spot children being trafficked into or out of the UK. Whilst we can all understand the vital work officials do it is not pleasant to be caught up, with your children in tow , in delays at the airport because you did not take the paperwork with you . If you have a different surname to your child, you can think about taking a copy birth certificate or change of name deed, just in case questions are asked. 4. Communicate You may think that your ex-partner worries unnecessarily. They may well do. However, parents do worry if their children are abroad, even if they are with their mum or dad. The parent who is waiting for the children’s return to the UK may be panicking if they have not had a text from the children or if the flights are delayed. A quick message can not only avoid a fraught reunion between children and parent but can also avoid a parent refusing to agree to your taking the children away abroad again. [related_posts] If you need legal assistance with applying to take children abroad or advice on existing childcare arrangements or court orders then please contact us

A case in the papers last week brought home to me how child abduction can devastate a family through the loss of a child. After years of battling with people who were once loved ones and trying to fight your way through a legal system to get family court orders to help you recover your child the process can be exhausting. As an experienced Manchester children law solicitor, over the years I have helped many parents in their child abduction fight to recover custody of their child. I have seen, at second hand, just what a toll child abduction can take, not only on the parent but on the extended family, such as half siblings or grandparents. What was it about the child abduction case in the media that caught my eye? It is difficult to say, maybe it was her 6 year fight for the return of her daughter or it could simply be the time of the year with shops putting up Christmas decorations and thoughts therefore turning to families and home. The Case of a Child Abducted Abroad by the Father The mother in question had left her 3 month old daughter in a cafe with the child’s father whilst she went shopping. He said that he would have a coffee but instead he abducted the child to Libya to stay with his mother. 2 years later, on the father’s return to the UK, he was sentenced and served a 4 year prison term for child abduction. Now out on license and living in the UK he says that he can’t secure the return of the little girl, who will soon be 7, as it is beyond his control. The child’s mother is making court applications in the UK for an order that the father return the child to the UK or face further prison time as well court proceedings in Libya in the hope that one of the court jurisdictions will be able to secure her daughter’s return. As a children solicitor, it is my experience of representing parents in child abduction cases that makes me listen intently when I meet a parent who wants advice about their husband, wife, former partner or extended family member wanting to take a child abroad on holiday. Some parents have half formed tentative worries about child abduction that are all too easy to only half hear and ignore the signals and others have massive concerns but without any of the trigger worries. Is there a way that you can assess whether a child is at serious risk of child abduction? Sadly, in most child abduction solicitors experience there isn't although there is always a heightened concern in cases where a parent or his extended family having links to another country, the ease with which the parent could simply disappear or if there are no real ties to the UK, such as property or a well-paid career. It simply isn't possible to put children in cages to protect them from child abduction or the other ills that they inevitably face as they grow older. I do however appreciate why so very many parents worry about their child and the risk of abduction by the other parent. It is equally understandable that some separated parents, perhaps with dual citizenship or family abroad, feel that they live under constant suspicion of child abduction and that influences their relationship with the child’s other parent. Sometimes that fear can even affect the parent - child relationship if there is a really hostile environment of fear between the parents and the child picks up on that. So if wrapping a child up in cotton wool is not a practical solution what other options are there to avoid the risk of child abduction? Any specialist Manchester children solicitor will tell you that there is no one solution but that if you have any fears about child abduction you should seek legal advice on child abduction and family court orders to protect the child , such as specific issue and prohibited steps orders , as quickly as you can to try and avoid the situation arising. If it does and the child has been taken to a Hague Convention country it certainly will be easier to locate and recover the child than to a country, such as Libya, that isn't a signatory to the Hague Convention. [related_posts]

If the father has parental responsibility for the child, then no, you cannot take them abroad without his consent. Under the Child Abduction Act 1984, it is a criminal offence for a parent to take a child under the age of 16 out of the UK without the appropriate consent. Fail to get permission and you could be jailed for child abduction. We are Cheshire children solicitors If you want to take your child away on holiday or overseas to live and need help getting consent contact us When taking your child abroad goes wrong It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that as you are the mother you don’t need anyone’s permission to take your child overseas on holiday or to live. That’s exactly what happened to one mother in October 2016, when she was jailed by Exeter Crown Court. The mother, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, took her daughter to Cambodia against the wishes of the father and in direct contravention of a court order. Before leaving the UK in October 2013, the woman took out £30,000 in loans. Her and her daughter were later expelled from Cambodia after overstaying their visas. Read the report on the BBC website. In sentencing her to 2 years and 6 months in jail, Judge Graham Cottle stated that he did not agree with her defence that she was acting in the best interest of the child. Cottle said that her decision to ignore the court order “tells me you did not have her interests at heart. You had your own completely misguided and selfish interests at heart." The daughter has subsequently been placed in the care of a foster family while her mother serves out her sentence. Who has parental responsibility for a child, and so must be asked before going on holiday? All mothers are automatically given parental responsibility, as do fathers who are: Named on the birth certificate (from 1st December 2003) ; or Who are married to the mother. A father can gain parental responsibility by marrying the mother (before or after the child’s birth) or through an order of the court or by signing a parental responsibility agreement. If the father does not have parental responsibility, you are not legally required to ask his permission before travelling although it is good practice to do so. When can you take your child abroad without the father’s consent? If you have a child arrangement order which states that the child should live with one parent (you), you are free to take them abroad for a maximum of 28 days without needing to gain permission, unless there is a court order to the contrary. You can also take a child abroad on holiday if there is a specific court order in place allowing you to do so. In order to obtain one, you will need to prove to the court that the trip is in the best interest of the child. Go to court prepared with your date of departure, date of return, means of travel and other pertinent details, including background  information on your separation. In my experience, such preparation tends to pay off. Before you even go to court, I’d recommend that you speak to one of our Cheshire children solicitors. They’ll be able to give you an honest opinion of your chances of success, based on years of experience. Remember, the more you tell them about your relationship with the father, the more accurate their advice will be. [related_posts] Problems you could face travelling abroad with your child When travelling abroad without the child’s father with you, it helps to be prepared in case border officials ask questions. While written consent from the father is not required, I would certainly recommend that you get it. Ask the father to write a letter that confirms their agreement with the holiday plan and includes their contact details and specifics about the holiday. You can then present this to the border authorities if asked. Over the years, hundreds of thousands of parents have been stopped at British airports, ports and train stations on suspicion of child abduction, simply because their surname doesn’t match their child’s surname. In the UK, a child’s passport only lists their name, date of birth and place of birth, with no reference to their parents. As a result, we would recommend that you take a copy of the birth, adoption or divorce certificate with you as additional proof of your relationship to your son or daughter.

The short answer is yes you can go to prison for taking your children to live abroad if you don’t have your ex-partner’s agreement or a Court order. The Daily Mail has reported on the case of a UK mother, Indea Ford, who this week has been sentenced to three and a half years in prison, after being extradited from the States, and standing trial in the UK for taking her two daughters to live in Alaska. Mrs Ford is likely to serve nine months in prison in the UK before being allowed to fly back to the States to return to live with her second husband, two daughters and her toddler child born from her relationship with her second husband. Court order to take children to live abroad On first reading the Indea Ford decision to send a mum of three young children to prison seems really harsh, not only on Mrs Ford but on her children.  A read through the Daily Mail article reveals that Mrs Ford asked her ex-husband for permission to take her two daughters to live in the States and when he refused to agree she applied for a family Court order. All would have been well for her had she been successful in her family Court application but she lost. The family judge decided that Mrs Ford and the children had no prior links to the States and that it was better for the children to stay in the UK. The correct legal option would have been to appeal the decision or wait, build up her legal case, and apply to the family Court again. Mrs Ford didn’t do that. Instead she breached the family Court order saying that one of her daughter’s passports had been lost or stolen so she could get a replacement passport and leave the UK with her two children. Prior to her departure the children had been seeing their dad but after the move to the USA contact stopped. The criminal proceedings and extradition have resulted in the children losing both their mum and dad as the girls are currently being looked after by their step father in the States and haven’t seen their birth dad. Criminal proceedings and prison The criminal trial judge who sentenced the mother to prison time made it clear that he was doing so because Mrs Ford had deliberately breached a family Court order refusing her permission to take the children abroad to live. The family Court document said that Mrs Ford would commit a criminal offence if she disobeyed the family Court order and took the children abroad. Despite the Court warning Mrs Ford went on with her plans to take the children to the States, securing a passport for one of her daughters by lying and saying that the original had been lost or stolen when she knew that the family Court had ordered that each parent keep one daughter’s passport for safekeeping. Reporting restrictions have prevented anyone on reporting why Mrs Ford felt so driven to breach the family Court order and take her daughters to the States but the media reports that she thought her highly acrimonious split from her ex-husband was damaging to the children. After Mrs Ford has served her prison sentence she will be able to return to the States to her second husband and three children but what about the long term harm of the criminal Court proceedings and maternal separation on the children? What about the potential for the children to find it harder to repair their relationship with their birth dad because of the criminal Court case against their mum and their mother’s prison time? Last year there were a number of cases where family judges in the UK took the unusual step of sending a parent to prison for contempt of Court. Jail time is imposed because of the parent’s failure to comply with family Court orders made within child abduction proceedings. In the past if a child was taken to a country outside of the European Union or a country that isn’t a signatory to the Hague convention the parent left in the UK often felt frustrated by the legal remedies to enforce UK family Court orders to recover their child from abroad. After a separation or divorce, and particularly if families have connections to more than one country, one parent may take a child abroad, often back to their country of origin, leaving the child abroad and in the care of their extended family. The parent then returns to the UK without the child to pick up their life again. Sometimes a parent doesn’t even realise that if a child is what is called habitually resident in the UK they can't just take their son or daughter abroad to live without the other parent’s agreement or a UK Court order . When the parent returns to the UK they often plead ignorance of the law and say that they have no control over whether their relatives comply with UK family Court orders and return the child to the UK. The Zubaidy family case is an example of a situation where a family Court has been willing to sentence a parent to jail time for their part in parental child abduction. Mr Zubaidy took his 3 children into Libya, through Tunisia, leaving the children with relatives in Libya. He then returned to the UK and whilst he eventually returned his son said that he couldn’t sort out the return of his 2 daughters. The family Court took a very robust approach and ordered Mr Zubaidy to provide addresses and information to help recover and return the girls to the UK. Mr Zubaidy didn’t obey a number of family Court orders, and to the mother’s frustration and distress, her daughters remain with paternal relatives in Libya. Contempt of Court proceedings were started against the children’s father and the Court was able to conclude that Mr Zubaidy had flouted family Court orders and in August 2017 sentenced him to 12 months imprisonment. When family judges have made robust orders for imprisonment this has resulted in family members abroad cooperating with the UK Court orders and returning children. For any parent caught up in trying to recover their children from abroad getting the other parent imprisoned is the very last resort but can hold the key to the eventual return of their son or daughter. [related_posts] Applying to Court for permission to take children abroad to live The case of Mrs Ford shows just how important it is to not only comply with family Court orders but to do all you can to get it right in the first case. How much easier it would have been for the children if Mrs Ford had been able to persuade the family judge to give her permission to take the children to the States. As a children lawyer , specialising in child abduction and complex children Court cases , I sometimes find that parents question the need for detailed preparation work as they assume they’ll get the Court permission they want without having to detail the background to their separation or research their plans to live abroad. I know just how devastating it can be for a parent to be told ‘’no ‘’ by a Court and preparation is the best chance of getting the order you want. The best advice is to: • Chose a specialist children lawyer who can give you an honest opinion on your likely chances of a successful Court application and can tell you how much information and preparation will be required to maximise the chances of success; • Work with your lawyer – if they tell you that they need information about your relationship it is not salaciousness it is because they need it to help you; • Research where you want to move to – you should look at houses , jobs , health services , schools and of course how contact would work in relation to your proposals and transport times and costs; • Consider the timing of any Court application – sometimes an application should be delayed or in other family circumstances it needs to be pushed through, for example so a child will start senior school in the new country rather than join a new school in a new country mid-term; • If you don’t get the Court decision you want take more legal advice before taking your children abroad. Contact us now for legal help when taking children abroad

The question of whether a mother’s decision to relocate from Australia to England with her two young children amounted to child abduction has been the subject of a Supreme Court ruling called Re C. The Court decision is of interest as it highlights the fact that often the decision to move from one country to another with children isn’t straightforward and therefore it isn’t easy to say what amounts to ‘’child abduction’’ and when ‘’habitual residence’’ changes from the country of origin to the country of relocation. In re C, two parents were living in Australia with their two children, the marriage ran into trouble and the father agreed that the British mother and the children (who had Australian citizenship) could take a trip to the UK for 8 weeks. The father then agreed, by email, that the trip could be extended to up to a year. During the year the mother decided that she wanted to remain in the UK with the two children. This decision resulted in the father applying under the Hague Convention for the children’s return to Australia. The legal question was whether the children remained ‘’habitually resident’’ in Australia as, on the father’s case, their stay in England was only temporary. If the Court ruled that the children remained ‘’habitually resident’’ in Australia the Hague Convention rules would be applied and the children would go back to Australia .The long term decision as to which parent the children should live with and in what country would then be decided by the Australian family Court. The Australian Court would have the option to rule that the children should stay in Australia with their mother or father or grant an application by the mother to return to the UK with the children. The mother resisted the father’s High Court application that the children should be returned to Australia arguing that the children were now habitually resident in the UK so the UK Court couldn’t apply the Hague Convention rules and summarily return the children to Australia for the Australian family Court to decide on the children’s future. The High Court agreed with the mother, the father appealed and the Court of Appeal agreed with the father ordering the children’s return to Australia. There was a further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the father’s application under the Hague Convention failed because the children had become ‘’habitually resident’’ in the UK and therefore the English Court could decide where the children’s future lay. Not all of the Supreme Court judges agreed with the leading judgment and a reading of the Court case and the various judge’s views shows just how finely balanced and complicated the decision was. The decision on whether the children were habitually resident in Australia or England all came down to when the mother formed her intention to remain in the UK with the children. Was it a case of a mother who was struggling to decide what to do and where to live with her two young children or a case of planned child removal by tactically getting the husband to agree to a one year stay in England? Why does the case matter? If the children had retained their habitual residence in Australia then under the Hague Convention the UK Court would have had to return the children to Australia using a quick summary procedure and without looking at the merits of either parent’s case namely that the children would be better off being brought up in Australia or the UK. Once back in Australia the mother might have found it harder to argue that the children should return to the UK with her. However as the Court has ruled that the Hague Convention doesn’t apply the UK Court can now carefully decide what is in the children’s best interests: to live in England with their mother or return to Australia with their father and the sort of contact time they should spend with the parent who isn’t going to be caring for them on a day to day basis. What does this case mean for a parent travelling with children to the UK? For the parent who has come over to the UK with their children it shows the depth of analysis of the legal concept of ‘’habitual residence’’ and the pouring over of detail and, in the case or Re C, the review of correspondence to try to determine when the children lost their habitual residence in Australia. Despite the Re C ruling many parents should be wary of the risks of arguing that their children have become habitually resident in England and thus the Convention doesn’t apply. That is because if the UK Court rules against them on the legal definition of habitual residence or on the facts of their case they start on ‘’the back foot’’ if they have to return to the country they departed from for that country to rule on their children’s long term future. The dilemma remains – do you apply for permission to take a child to live abroad in the country in which the child lives and risk Court failure or risk travelling abroad and the Court ruling that the child’s habitual residence remains the country of origin thus forcing a Hague Convention return and a more challenging Court application in the country of origin. What does this case mean for a parent agreeing to their children going abroad with one parent for an extended period? It may mean that if the parent receives legal advice they will be less likely to agree to a child going abroad for an extended holiday as if their child is at risk of losing habitual residence the Hague Convention won't apply thus making it a lot harder to recover children from abroad. The dissenting Supreme Court judge’s views show just how difficult it is to define the concept of ‘’habitual residence’’ and how easy it is to fall foul of child abduction laws and conventions. As a child abduction lawyer the case of Re C shows just how finely balanced Court decisions can be and the importance of parents taking legal advice before they take their children abroad or agree to an extended trip abroad so that they make informed decisions. For advice on any aspect of children or child abduction law please contact us. [related_posts]

Mr Justice Keehan sitting in the High Court of Justice Family Division delivered his judgment in the case of B v C [2016] EWHC 1586 (Fam) on 18 March 2016. This case concerned an application by a mother (“B”) to relocate with her child (“A”) out of the jurisdiction to Israel and a competing application by the father (“C”) for a Child Arrangements Order regularising his contact with A. The father collected A after nursery every Thursday and returned A to nursery on Monday mornings. The father sought a child arrangements order confirming the time he spent with A. The mother sought to relocate to Israel where her father was terminally ill to help her mother care for him and also her fiancé wished to return to Israel. In the alternative, she sought to reduce the father's contact. The father sought to remain in England and did not wish his contact with A to be reduced. There was ongoing considerable hostility between the parents who since separation had been engaged in continuous court proceedings with orders made at significant financial cost to them both. The Judge was satisfied that it would be in A’s welfare best interests to grant the mother’s application to relocate with A to live in Israel. The Judge found that both parents loved A and were capable of looking after him. Both parents were connected to Israel and had family there. The mother’s relocation out of the jurisdiction would relieve her of the stress and pressures of the consistently hostile relationship with the father as he would remain in the jurisdiction. The amount of contact between the father and A would be reduced but he would have quality contact during the holidays. Please see the attached judgement of Mr Justice Keehan. B v C [2016] EWHC 1586 (Fam) To discuss this case, please email Louise Halford louise@evolvefamilylaw.co.uk