Buscador de jurisprudencia

The mother and father were both Nigerian citizens living in the United Kingdom. They married in 2008.

In 2009 the mother flew to the United States to give birth to their first child, with the agreed purpose for the trip being to provide the child with the benefits of United States citizenship. The couple agreed to follow the same plan for the second child and, in 2011, the mother travelled to the United States accompanied by their daughter. The second child, a son, was born in June 2011.

Following the birth the mother informed the father that she did not plan to return to the United Kingdom. The father sent a series of abusive and threatening messages to the mother and the mother terminated all contact with the father in October 2011.

The mother’s tourist visa expired in November 2011 and she was subject to deportation. She filed an asylum claim which was preliminarily rejected in December 2011, with a hearing set for April 2013.

The father made an application for the return of the children to the United Kingdom under the 1980 Hague Convention. At the time of the hearing the father had never seen his son.

Return ordered.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

The son was born in the United States and due to the mother's unilateral decision to remain in the United States against the father's wishes, the son had never lived in England. Nonetheless, at the time of the son's birth, the established family home was in the United Kingdom.

Human Rights - Art. 20

The mother argued that Article 20 was applicable for two reasons: the risk of harm created by returning the children to their father and the possibility that returning to the United Kingdom with her children would threaten the mother's pending application for asylum in the United States.

The court found no evidence that children’s human rights and fundamental freedoms would be in jeopardy in the United Kingdom and found no legal authority or evidence suggesting the children would not have adequate protection of their rights under the UK legal system. The mother's assertion of an Article 20 based on her asylum application was found to be wholly without legal or logical support. The mother has failed to show why returning to England would jeopardize her asylum application. Additionally, she presented nothing to suggest that Article 20 applies to the protection of a parent's human rights and fundamental freedoms, as opposed to those the children.