This flowchart sets out the steps to be taken in proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 (the 1980 Hague Convention). To access detailed practical guidance on the steps

This Practice Note explains criminal offences under the Child Abduction Act 1984 (CAA 1984) and also covers electronic tagging and the Law Commission’s recommendations to amend the offences under CAA 1984. Criminal law Offences of child abduction were created by CAA 1984. Subject to the exceptions provided, it is an offence for a person connected with a child under the age of 16 to take or send the child out of the UK without appropriate consent. Exceptions include: • where the person is named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the child is to live and they take or send the child out of the UK for a period of less than one month, or • where the person is a special guardian of the child and they take or send the child out of the UK for a period of less than three months A person connected with a child is defined as: • a parent of the child • in the case of a child whose parents were not

This flowchart sets out the limited defences (exceptions) that may be raised in response to an application under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 (the 1980 Hague Convention). To access detailed practical guidance on the steps in the flowchart including relevant overviews, Practice Notes, precedents, procedural

This Practice Note provides guidance on emergency steps that may be taken in child abduction cases including location orders, passport orders, port alerts, collection orders and orders for action by the court Tipstaff. It also details the procedural requirements of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), specifically FPR 2010, PD 12E and guidance issued by the President of the Family Division in March 2018 which was subsequently revised in March 2023. For further practical guidance on practice and procedure in child abduction cases, see Practice Notes: • Child abduction—introduction and issuing proceedings (1980 Hague Convention) • Child abduction—procedure and evidence (Hague Convention) • Child abduction—orders to locate and recover a child in the UK In some cases, consideration may need to be given to the impact of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU (Brexit). 11 pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020 (‘IP completion day’) marked the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period entered into following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. From IP completion day key transitional arrangements came to an end and significant

The requirement to take enforcement steps to secure the return of a child from a non-Hague Convention country may arise either where the removal has been unexpected and without warning, or following an agreement or an order for a temporary removal. See Practice Note: Child abduction—wardship and inherent jurisdiction (non-Hague Convention) as to the principles applied in non-Hague Convention cases and procedural considerations. This Practice Note considers enforcement in non-Hague convention cases of child abduction, including wardship, together with practice and procedure. In March 2022, the President of the Family Division issued updated guidance on liaison between courts in England and Wales and British Embassies and High Commissions abroad, addressing the procedures to be followed when a court seeks to invoke consular assistance. The procedures have been agreed between the President and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). See: The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Retention after temporary removal When an application is made to temporarily remove a child to a non-Hague Convention country, the overriding consideration for the court will be whether the making of

This Practice Note sets out the applicable law in relation to child abduction cases where a country is a contracting state in relation to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 (the 1980 Hague Convention), together with the availability of public funding, the role of the central authority and steps to be taken to issue an application for a return order. It also considers the child abduction mediation scheme and the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 (commonly known as Brussels II bis or Brussels IIA) in child abduction cases prior to 1 January 2021 and in transitional cases—see: Implications of Brexit. Guidance has been issued by the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) as to cross-border recognition and enforcement of agreements, see: General approach The domestic law implementing the 1980 Hague Convention is the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (CACA 1985). Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 12, together with FPR 2010, PD 12F, apply as to procedure. FPR

This Practice Note sets out the limited defences (exceptions) that may be raised in response to an application under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the 1980 Hague Convention), including the defences of a child being settled in a new jurisdiction, consent, acquiescence or non-exercise of rights of custody by the left-behind parent, grave risk of physical or psychological harm if a return is ordered and the child’s objection to a return. It also considers the general approach of the courts in cases of child abduction as to the exercise of discretion and immigration issues. An abducting parent will often put forward more than one of the available defences. Strictly, though commonly used, the terminology ‘defences’ is inaccurate, rather there are narrow ‘exceptions’ to the ordinary consequences of a wrongful removal, as opposed to 'defences' that act to exonerate a parent's wrongful conduct. For practical guidance on proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention, see: • Child abduction—introduction and issuing proceedings (1980 Hague Convention)

This Practice Note sets out the steps that may be taken to obtain information to locate a child who has been abducted into this jurisdiction, including by the obtaining of a location or disclosure order. It also details the various government agencies and other organisations to whom an information request may be made and the procedure to locate and recover a child together with other mechanisms of locating and recovering a child, for example under the provisions of the Family Law Act 1986 (FLA 1996). For practical guidance on child abduction proceedings generally, see Practice Notes: • Child abduction—emergency remedies • Child abduction—introduction and issuing proceedings (1980 Hague Convention) • Child abduction—1996 Hague Convention • Child abduction—procedure and evidence (Hague Convention) In some cases, consideration may need to be given to the impact of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU (Brexit). 11pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020 marked the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period entered into following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. At this

This Practice Note sets out the evidential requirements for an application under the Hague Convention on Civil International Aspects of Child Abduction 1980 (the 1980 Hague Convention), together with the directions that may be made by the court and practice and procedure when making a without notice application or an application on notice. It primarily addresses 1980 Hague Convention proceedings but also guidance regarding wider international child abduction proceedings, including under the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (the 1996 Hague Convention). It also details requirements as to the withdrawal of an application, strike out or summary dismissal, variation and setting aside. See also Practice Notes: Child abduction—introduction and issuing proceedings (1980 Hague Convention) and Child abduction—1996 Hague Convention. From 11 pm 31 December 2020 (implementation period (IP) completion day), Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility

Family analysis: When is it appropriate take into account the objection by a child of being returned in an abduction case? Ian Karsten QC, retired circuit judge, explores what ‘object’ means in this context and looks at the decision in Re L (Grave risk of harm) (Child’s Objections).

This Practice Note details the provisions regarding wardship and inherent jurisdiction in child abduction cases involving a country that is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Civil International Aspects of Child Abduction 1980 (the 1980 Hague Convention) or the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (the 1996 Hague Convention), including the principles to be applied and procedural considerations. For practical guidance on proceedings under the 1980 or 1996 Hague Conventions, see Practice Notes: Child abduction—introduction and issuing proceedings (1980 Hague Convention) and Child abduction—1996 Hague Convention. In March 2018, the then President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, set out detailed and extensive guidance on, in particular, case management and associated matters such as witness evidence and bundles that applies to ‘international child abduction proceedings’, the definition of which includes proceedings under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The guidance was revised in March 2023 and should be followed in addition to the relevant provisions

Public Law analysis: The Court of Appeal dismissed an Article 14 challenge to historic rules governing exceptions to the two-child limit on the Universal Credit child element. Assuming relevant comparators existed, it held that both the age-ordering restriction for children conceived non-consensually and the more favourable treatment of adoptive parents and non-parental carers were objectively justified and proportionate. The judgment confirms that justification will often be decisive even where status or comparability is doubtful, and illustrates when an appellate court should undertake its own proportionality assessment under Shvidler. Although the statutory scheme has since been repealed, the reasoning has wider practical significance for discrimination challenges to socioeconomic legislation and appellate review of proportionality. Produced in partnership with Denis Edwards, barrister, Normanton Chambers.