This new UK case may not exactly violate the Hague Convention, but it uses the mature child's objection defense in a situation where it isn't extraordinarily compelling and if it was considered in most cases like this one, there would be a lot fewer returns of abducted children.
There is much obviously and shamefully slanted language about what country is the family's real home, but the court admits that there is really no defense to the case for return of the children except for the objection of the 13-year-old child. Some of the child's reasons sound possibly mature, but also typical of any case where a parent has kept the child in the country for months on a purported visit, then months longer after dropping that pretense. Other reasons sound frankly immature, such as "no one's going to make me get on that plane." Bottom line, even though the family clearly resided in Canada for over a year before the children were unilaterally taken to the UK, and no other defenses apply, the children won't get to have their custody decided by Canada's courts, and the abductor wins.
Comments