Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Ontario Court Orders Children Returned to United Kingdom

November 7, 2008/in /by Stephen Pitel
image_pdfimage_print

 In Courtney v. Springfield (available here) the parties had cohabitated as a same-sex couple for nine years in the United Kingdom and the defendant had adopted two children (the couple could not legally adopt them as a couple).  The defendant separated from the plaintiff in 2003 and moved to Ontario with the children in 2007.  The plaintiff sought the return of the children, based on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.  She won: the court ordered the return of the children to the United Kingdom.

The case concerns the following issues: (a) did the plaintiff, who had not adopted the children, have “rights of custody” over the children; (b) was the plaintiff exercising those rights at the time of removal (since the parties had been separated for four years), (c) were there other reasons the court should nonetheless decline to order the return of the children.  The answers: yes, yes, and no.  The most complex analysis is on the first of these issues, and the case contains several interesting factual wrinkles.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Stephen Pitel https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Stephen Pitel2008-11-07 11:08:402008-11-07 11:08:40Ontario Court Orders Children Returned to United Kingdom

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: French Case on Lis Pendens under Brussels II bis Regulation Link to: French Case on Lis Pendens under Brussels II bis Regulation French Case on Lis Pendens under Brussels II bis Regulation Link to: Latest Issue of “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (6/2008) Link to: Latest Issue of “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (6/2008) Latest Issue of “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts”...
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top