A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce

01202 805020

Mon/Fri 9am-6pm       Sat/Sun 2pm-6pm
Call for FREE expert advice & service info

Once a child has been returned to England or Wales on the order of a foreign court there will inevitably be further proceedings in the English or Welsh courts.

If the child has been made a Ward of Court these proceedings will take place in the High Court. If the order of the foreign court is not to return the child but to allow contact then the terms for that will need to be arranged. This is the sort of order a court is likely to make in this situation:

UPON both the Plaintiff and Defendant both undertaking (other than by prior joint written agreement lodged with their Solicitors) (a) not to remove the child X from the jurisdiction of England & Wales and (b) not to permit him to reside other than at (such and such an address) until further order of the Court

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

· The Wardship herein is hereby discharged;

· This matter shall be transferred forthwith from the High Court to the County Court and proceed under the Children Act 1989;

· The Plaintiff and Defendant shall forthwith deliver up their respective passports to their current Solicitors who shall hold them to the Order of the Court pending conclusion of these proceedings;

· The passport of the child shall be held by Messrs ABC solicitors to the Order of the Court pending conclusion of these proceedings or further order;

· The parties shall file statements by 4pm on (14 days) limited to the question of their future plans for care and contact;

· The CAFCASS Officer is requested to report upon the issues of residence and contact by 4pm on (14 weeks) and is to attend the final hearing of this matter unless advised no less than 7 days in advance of the hearing by both the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s Solicitors in writing;

· This matter is to be listed before a Circuit Judge for PTR with a time estimate of one hour on the First available date in the week commencing …… and for final hearing time estimate 2-3 days on a date to be fixed by Counsel’s clerks;

· Pending final hearing the child ..... shall reside at …..

· Contact …….

If you have been through the process of securing the return of a child you will be keen to ensure that your child is not abducted again. One option is relatively unknown: to have the potential abductor tagged.

The principle was first established in Re C (Abduction: Interim Directions: Accommodation by Local Authority) [2003] EWHC 3065 (Fam), [2004] 1 FLR 653 which forms part of the Cannon case detailed in External Relocation: Advice to Non-UK Fathers. At the time there was no specific procedure; since then a procedure has been devised by the President’s office whereby tagging can be arranged through the Tagging Team of the National Office for the Management of Offenders. Orders must follow this schedule of information:

1. An order needs to be made and sealed by 3.30pm on the day before its implementation.

2. A representative will attend the premises to install the device the next day. The order must contain the following information:

i. The full name of the person(s) to be tagged.

ii. The full address of the place of curfew.

iii. The date and time at which the tagged person agrees to be at home (or any other relevant places) for the installation of the monitoring device.

iv. A schedule of the times at which the court expects the person to be at home (or any other relevant places) so that the service can monitor compliance.

v. The start date of the curfew and, if known, the end date of the curfew, the days on which the curfew operates and the curfew hours each day.

vi. The name and contact details of the relevant officer to whom the service should report if there is any breach of the above schedule or if the person appears to have removed the tag.

Also refer to the case of Re A (Family Proceedings: Electronic Tagging) [2009] EWHC 710 which utilised this schedule. A sample order is appended to the judgement. A mother had twice abducted a child. The child was now in the father’s care and the mother sought an order for contact; the father feared she would again abduct the child and it was eventually agreed between them that she should be tagged.