Natalie Dawn Kennedy v Philip Thomas
[2024] EWHC 303 (Fam)
Chaimae Chat Kaha v Adil Lahmer
27 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2439 (Fam)
High Court
A dad didn't bring his child back from Algeria even though a judge told him to. He said his mum stopped him, but the judge didn't believe him. The judge said the dad could have brought the child back if he wanted to, so he was found guilty of disobeying the court.
Key Facts
- •Father (F) failed to return child (V) from Algeria to the UK as ordered by the court.
- •F was found to have deliberately disobeyed court orders.
- •F's claim that his mother prevented him from complying with the order was rejected by the court.
- •The court found F had the power and control to make decisions regarding V's life, including his return to the UK.
- •Previous court orders for V's return had been ignored by F.
- •F had previously stated his intention to keep V in Algeria permanently.
Legal Principles
Committal proceedings are essentially criminal in nature; the burden of proof lies on the applicant; the presumption of innocence applies; contempt must be proved to the criminal standard; contempt involves deliberate disobedience to an order; the applicant must prove the defendant was able to comply.
Bailey v Bailey (Committal) [2022] EWFC
Contempt applications must comply with rule 37.4 of the FPR 2010, incorporating safeguards identified in L (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 173.
FPR 2010, rule 37.4; L (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 173
Outcomes
Father found in contempt of court for breaching the return order.
Court found beyond reasonable doubt that the father had the power to comply with the order and deliberately chose not to.
One of the alleged breaches of the order (paragraph 19) was struck out due to a lack of clarity in the original order.
The order lacked the essential clarity of the obligation on the respondent, a prerequisite for a committal application.