HC/E/UKe 1673
UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES
High Court of Justice (Family Division)
First Instance
Mr Justice Peel
MAURITIUS
UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES
18 September 2025
Final
Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
Return ordered
-
Re IG [2021] EWCA Civ 1123; Re S (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2012] UKSC 10; TB v JB [2000] EWCA Civ 337; Re C (Children) (Abduction: Article 13b) [2018] EWCA Civ 2834; Re C (Article 13(b)) [2021] EWCA Civ 1354; Re D (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] 1 AC 619; Re T (Abduction: Protective Measures: Agreement to Return) [2023] EWCA Civ 1415; G v D [2020] EWHC 1476 (Fam); Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448
-
The parents married in Mauritius in September 2020. Both children were born in Mauritius and fully integrated there. The whole family were citizens of Mauritius. The mother and children also held UK citizenship.
In December 2024 the mother travelled to the UK with the children. They did not return at the end of December as the father had expected.
The mother argued the parents agreed that her and the children would move to the UK for better opportunities and the father would follow once he had secured immigration status. The father disputed this and argued that the travel to the UK was meant to be a holiday during the Christmas period. The mother later contradicted her previous statement saying that she changed her mind on arrival in the UK and decided not to return due to the father’s abuse.
The father filed an application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention for the return of the children to Mauritius.
Return ordered.
The mother made serious allegations of abuse against the father with some, limited, photographic evidence. The father disputed these allegations and offered a number of protective measures.
The Judge held that the mother’s allegations should be taken at their highest. He took into account all the evidence, including that the children maintained a good relationship with their father and would be returning to a country they knew well. The Judge was not satisfied that the impact on the mother would be such as to directly compromise her care of the children, nor that it would have a consequential effect on the children which would represent a grave risk to their wellbeing. The Judge was also not persuaded that the mother left Mauritius wholly or mainly because of the Father’s abusive conduct towards her.
The potential risks to the children were witnessing domestic abuse, being separated from their mother or being otherwise subjected to unilateral actions by the father. These risks could be adequately and safely be addressed by protective measures sought by the mother, with some amendments added by the Judge.