Case number and/or case name
HA v MB, A (a child, by his guardian) [2007] EWHC 2016 (Fam)
Summary
The proceedings were concerned with a child, A, who was born in May 2005.
The parties married in June 2001 in England. The father was a Palestian national. The mother was a French national.
In June 2005, the mother and the child went to France. Mother was hospitalised, being unwell. She could not return back to England before 23rd August 2005. The mother decided to initiate divorce proceedings in France.
The father, through the English authority, requested the return of the child in England. The French court refused the return of the child.
The English court commenced the Article 11(7) proceedings on 18th October 2006. The case was complex because, following the separation, the immigration status of the father was a cause for concern as well. Mr Justice Singer refused to order a return of the child to England. He held:
“120 I will decline to order A's return to this jurisdiction, in the sense that I decline to make an order that he should live here with either parent. Instead he should remain living with M in France. I will make a residence order in her favour, that being my view of the outcome appropriate at the conclusion of this article 11(7) examination of the question of A's custody.
121 I will also in due course make a contact order regulating A's contact with F, the detailed terms of which I will ask the parties to attempt to agree in the light of this judgment, failing which I will make rulings. My intention is that that contact order should be framed to continue until further order or until F may cease to reside in England and Wales, whereupon it should be replaced by formulated provision for indirect contact (to include, if and when practical, contact via webcam) plus such other direct or indirect contact as the parties may agree in writing. Any questions arising upon the form of the contact order are to be referred to me for decision after position statements have been prepared by each party on the points in issue. An order will then be drawn to reflect the detail of the decision.” [120-121]