In re A (a Minor) (Abduction:  Acquiescence)
         Life & Times 25 Aug 1992 -- Court of Appeal Law Report
         [United Kingdom]

         Before Sir Donald Nicholls, Vice Chancellor, Lord Justice
         Butler-Sloss and Sir Michael Kerr

         [Judgment 29 Jul 1992]

         The father of a child abducted to England could be said to have
         acquiesced in the abduction for the purposes of article 13(a)  of
         the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child
         Abduction notwithstanding that he did not at the time of the acts
         alleged to constitute acquiescence have specific knowledge of his
         rights under the Convention.

         The Court of Appeal so held when allowing  an appeal by the
         child's mother, uncle and aunt from the order of Mrs. Justice
         Booth made on 21 May 1992, in the Family Division, that the child
         should be returned to Germany, his country of habitual residence,
         under article 12 of the Convention.

         Mr. Patrick Eccles, QC and Miss Camilla De Sousa Turner for the
         mother.

         Mr. Patrick Eccles, QC and Miss Camilla De Sousa Turner for the
         uncle and aunt.

         Mr. Andrew Ritchie for the father.

         LORD JUSTICE BUTLER-SLOSS said that unless article 13 of the
         Hague Convention, incorporated into English law in Schedule 1 to
         the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, applied, the judge was
         bound to order the return of the child under article 12.  The
         court had, however, a discretion not to return the child if one
         of the situations set out in article 13 was proved.


         Article 13(a) was relied upon:

              "Notwithstanding  the  provisions  of   the   preceding
              Article,  the  judicial  or administrative authority of
              the requested State is not bound to  order  the  return
              of  the  child if the person [who] .  .  .  opposes its
              return establishes that--(a) the person .  .  .  having
              the care of the person of the child . . . had consented
              to   or  subsequently  acquiesced  in  the  removal  or
              retention . . ."

         The judge relied on and  applied a passage from the judgment of
         Lord Justice Stuart-Smith in In re A (Abduction: Custody rights)
         (The Times 17 Feb; [1992] 2 WLR 536, 547-548) in the course of
         which he had said:

              "A party cannot be  said  to  acquiesce  unless  he  is
              aware, at least in general terms, of his rights against
              the  other parent.   It is not necessary that he should
              know the full or precise nature  of  his  legal  rights
              under  the  Convention:   but he must be aware that the
              other parent's act in removing or retaining  the  child
              is unlawful."

         Her ladyship did not agree with the judge or with Mr. Ritchie's
         argument that in order to show acquiescence it had to be
         established that the applicant had specific knowledge of his
         rights under the Hague Convention.

         In her Ladyships' view, on the evidence there was a clear case of
         acquiescence which had been accepted and acted upon by the
         mother's family.

         She would allow the appeal and set aside the direction to return
         the child forthwith to Germany and would remit the case to the
         High Court for consideration whether the child should or should
         not be returned to the jurisdiction of the German courts.
         WMHFN-1

         The Vice-Chancellor and Sir Michael Kerr delivered concurring
         judgments.

         Solicitors:  Johnson and Grant; Bower and Bailey; Pritchard Joyce
         and Hinds.


         Footnotes by William M. Hilton, CFLS
         ------------------------------------
         1.   This decision, while technically correct and which follows In
              re A (Minors) (Abduction: Acquiescence) UK Court of Appeal,
              seems to be contra to The Convention which seeks to have the
              child promptly returned to its habitual residence which,
              presumably, is the place where the bulk of the evidence
              concerning its best interests can be found.  For a
              contrasting decision on this point see Tyszka v Tyszka  STATE
              OF MICHIGAN, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE,
              Case No. 90-022578-DM.  This is available on this BBS as
              TYSZKA.MI.