Neustadt v Neustadt (Child Abduction) (Rev 1)

A child’s removal abroad is an abduction where the removing parent has no genuine intention of returning the child, even if initially presented as a holiday. In assessing future welfare and risk, the court may consider planning, deception, breach of orders, prolonged isolation, manipulation of the children and family collusion. A sustained course of such conduct may justify finding a high risk of further abduction or alienation. Publication of a family judgment may be authorised where the public interest is strong, existing publicity has caused no apparent harm, publication is unlikely to cause serious or lasting disadvantage, and postponement serves no useful purpose.

The father took the two older children from England to Russia for an agreed Christmas visit in December 2012 and failed to return them. He concealed their whereabouts, breached English orders and arranged for them to live clandestinely until Russian authorities recovered them in June 2014. They returned to England with their mother in July 2014.

The father then sought contact with the three children and gave evidence about his intentions, conduct and alleged remorse. The court determined the facts, assessed future risk and considered whether the judgment should be published without anonymisation.

1. Abduction. The father’s removal of the children was an abduction, not a retention. He had planned it for months and had no intention of returning them when he took them from England. The children had been habitually resident in England and Wales since January 2011.
2. The father pursued a sustained course of deception, delay and obstruction. He ignored English orders, restricted and then stopped the mother’s contact, obtained travel restrictions, went into hiding after the Russian court ordered recognition and enforcement of the English order, and subjected the children to a clandestine life. They were told that dangerous persons were pursuing them and were coached to reject their mother. The conduct amounted to child abuse as well as child abduction.
3. The father’s evidence was unreliable and untruthful. His apologies showed no genuine remorse or insight. Given his sustained ruthlessness and family collusion, the risk of further alienation or abduction was high. The father remained important to the children, but future welfare decisions required separate consideration.
4. The court referred to R v Kayami; R v Solliman [2011] EWCA Crim 2871, which illustrated the differing gravity of child abduction and the exceptional seriousness of deliberate removal causing prolonged separation.
5. Publication. The judgment could be published in un-anonymised form. There was a public interest in correcting misinformation and publicising the apparent first successful use of the Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children. Publication was unlikely to cause serious or lasting disadvantage to the children, and postponement would serve no useful purpose.

First-instance fact-finding and publication decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.