Summary
The child abduction proceedings were in respect of a child, Eva. The applicant was Eva’s grandmother. The respondent was Eva’s mother. The parties are all nationals of Czech Republic.
The mother gave birth to Eva in Czech Republic in August 2009 when she herself was very young. It was the grandmother who cared for the child.
In December 2011, the Czech court made an order for the child to live with the grandmother.
The mother came in England in early 2012. he mother’s situation in England was not an easy one.
In June 2014, the grandmother and Eva came over to England. The grandmother left in July, without Eva.
An application for a summary return was made by the grandmother.
The English court ordered the child’s return. Mr Justice Peter Jackson held:
“40 […] I would order a return because, under Article 11.4 , I am satisfied that adequate arrangements can be made to protect Eva. Moreover, from a review of the history, it is clear that Eva is a Czech child. All of her family, apart from her mother, are in the Czech Republic, including her father, who supports her return. The mother's situation in England is very uncertain.
41 There are many reasons why it is much better that Eva's future should be decided by the District Court, which already has proceedings in existence. I would say again that I am not making a welfare judgment, but the Czech court has conferred custody of Eva on her grandmother.
42 The mother now wishes to look after her daughter and that is understandable. I know that this decision disappoints her. There are a number of ways in which she has impressed me, but in order to reach a decision about Eva, the matter must be put before the court of Eva's origin, to decide upon her future.” [40-42]