Case Law Search

The Mother and Father married in England in 1996. At the time of the hearing they were separated but not divorced. The whole family were British citizens and the two children relevant to this case (X and Y) were born in the UK. 

In 2013 the Mother relocated to France with the children. The Father continued to be employed in England. He visited France regularly to spend time with the children. During the COVID-19 pandemic he was not able to travel and did not spend much time with them.

In August 2022, the Father came to France for a holiday. He took the children to London, without the Mother's permission, traveling on passports which the Mother was not aware of.

The Mother used private investigators to locate the children. She said she involved state authorities and the police, but limited or no action was taken.

The Mother filed an application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention for the return of the children. 

In December 2022 the parents agreed to a consent order for the summary return of Y to France and for X to remain in the UK with the Father. It was ordered that Y should be returned no later than 3 January 2023. On 1 January, the father claimed that Y was ill and refused to return. Y continue to live with him in England. 

On 12 January 2023 solicitors acting for the children applied for them to be joined as parties to the proceedings. 

In August 2023 the Mother conceded that X and Y should not be separated. She argued that both children should be return to France but that if it was found that X should not be returned, then Y should not be returned alone.

Return refused. The Mother acquiesced to X’s removal; both children objected to being returned to France; and to return only Y would place him at grave risk of psychological harm as he would be separated from his sister.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

The Judge held that the Mother had acquiesced to X remaining in England, as was agreed in the December 2022 consent order. After this order the Mother continued to request that Y be returned but did not seek the return of X until April 2023. In this time X had started school.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

There were allegations of physical chastisement and psychological and emotional harm caused to both children by the Mother, such harm being particularly focused on X. Taking the allegations at their highest there was a grave risk of harm to X should the children be returned to France.

The Court’s focus was on the future risk of harm and the Judge was satisfied that protective measures existed within the French administrative and judicial system to protect X from any psychological harm.

The judge did not find that there was a grave risk of psychological or physical harm to Y, however, he would be placed at such risk where he could be separated from his sister.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

The Judge found that X objected to returning to France and that this was a strong, powerful and consistently held objection. She was 14 at the time of the hearing and of the age and maturity that the court must have regard to her wishes and feelings. Y was 11 at the time of the hearing and was also found to object to returning. The Judge held that Y's views should be taken into account, keeping in mind that he had been influenced by his fear of being returned to France alone, without his older sister. This had worried him for months. 

The Judge then considered all the evidence together in the exercise of his discretion. A powerful factor in the discretionary balance was to ensure that the siblings remained together. The Judge also considered the fact that the Mother had not had any in-person contact with the children since their removal. Three such visits had been arranged but the Mother had not been prepared or able to come to England for them to take place.

Though the Judge did not rule on whether the children were now habitually resident in England, he noted their significant degree of integration as a factual matter in exercising his discretion.

Several of the exceptions to return were made out on the facts, and the judge was most persuaded by the fact that X fundamentally posed return. The separation of the siblings would place Y at grave risk of harm. The Mother had also acquiesced to the children remaining in England.