A judge responsible for the Family Division of the Grand Court and who is also the Hague Convention Network Judge for the Cayman Islands found that a Caymanian child was “wrongfully removed” from the Cayman Islands by the child’s father and without knowledge of the child’s mother.  The judge also made several orders to be considered by the overseas court where the child is located.

According to the Judgment, the alleged series of events were as follows:

The mother alleges that on 10 November 2023, the father informed her that he was taking the child to the cinema.

However, he instead left the jurisdiction with the child without the mother’s knowledge or consent.

The Judgment explained that “On 11 November 2023, the father told the mother on the telephone at 5:15 a.m… that he was staying with the child at the Westin Hotel and that he would have the child back to the mother by noon, but in fact he had already left the Cayman Islands.”

The mother contacted the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service on November 11, 2023, who confirmed that the child and the father left the Cayman Islands on a flight.

The Judgment added: “The mother was informed that the father has only purchased a one-way flight ticket and that his business partner has confirmed that the father asked him to buy out his interest in his Cayman Islands business for CI$45,000.”

The Judgment continued:

On 12 November 2023, via text messages, the father acknowledged that the child was [overseas].

On 13 November 2023, the father said to the mother, amongst other messages, “come baby we miss you.”

The mother in her messages was demanding that the child be returned, was talking about divorce proceedings, and threatening to involve Interpol.

On 14 November 2023, the father said that he did not need permission from the mother’s family members to take the child on vacation.

The Judgment explained that “The mother has been able to speak to the child by WhatsApp on 13, 14 and 15 November 2023, which has been facilitated by the child’s paternal aunt.”

In the meantime, it is alleged that “the father has removed all the original copies of the child’s paperwork and that he has been contacting her school requesting her academic transcripts.”

The mother fears that the father is now seeking to enrol the child at a school overseas.

The Judgment concluded:

It is this action, coupled with:

(i) the surreptitious way in which the father removed the child;

(ii) the fact that he asked his business partner to pay out his share in their business;

(iii) the fact that US$15,550 on 5 September 2023 and other funds on other days have been transferred by him to his personal… bank account; and

(iv) the fact that he had purchased only a one way flight ticket, that leads the mother to conclude that the father does not intend to return the child to the Cayman Islands.

 

The mother, therefore, sought “(i) a Sole Residence Order; (ii) a Specific Issue Order requiring the father to forthwith return the child to her care in the Cayman Islands; and (iii) a Prohibited Steps Order prohibiting the father from obtaining information pertaining to the child from her school in the Cayman Islands.”

In agreement with the mother, observations were made in the judgment regarding the 1980 Hague Convention on Child Abduction proceedings.

The Judgment noted that the country where the child was taken is “a contracting state to the 1980 Hague Convention on Child Abduction.”

The Judgment added: “This Convention is an international agreement, and it operates to ensure the fast return of children to the country where they normally live if, for example, they have been wrongly removed from there.”

The Judgment continued: “The mother has quite correctly contacted the Cayman Islands Central Authority who are in the process of making an application to the Central Authority [overseas] to seek the return of the child to the Cayman Islands.”

The Judgment concluded:

If the father fails to comply with the orders of the Grand Court, then the application for a return order for the child will take place in the Courts [overseas].

The proceedings under the Convention would probably not involve the [overseas] Courts dealing with where the best place is for the child to live. The question for that Court will be whether the child has been wrongfully removed. If the Court also considers that the child has been wrongfully removed, then in most cases it must order the return of the child.”

Note for readers:

The Judgment was delivered in private, but the Judge hereby gives leave for it to be published.

The Judgment in this matter is being distributed on a strict understanding that in any report no person other than the attorneys (and any other person identified by name in the Judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and in particular the anonymity of the child and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved.