Buscador de jurisprudencia

The parents met in New Zealand and had a son in 2022, who has dual New Zealand and British citizenship. They lived in New Zealand until September 2024 when the mother brought the child to the UK for a family wedding, with the father’s consent. The mother and child did not return to New Zealand after the wedding and in May 2025 the father brought proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention for the summary return.

There were significant areas of factual disagreement in the case. The mother made allegations of domestic violence and emotional abuse, which were contested by the father. Both parties gave evidence on the question of whether the father acquiesced to the child remaining in the UK.

Return refused due to acquiescence of the father.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Taking all evidence into account the Judge found that the father had acquiesced to the retention of the child in the UK. It was clear that the father knew about the legal options available to him and he chose not to pursue them for a significant time. It was equally clear that both parents’ views on what the father should do and the future of their relationship. There was no debate as to where B should live but the Judge held that there was a clear assumption that, whatever the father did, the child would remain with the mother in the UK. 

In the Judge’s view, this assumption underlay the actions of both parents, including the mother telling the father she had resigned from her job in New Zealand and the father wishing her luck in her new job interviews in England. The father also made no objection to the child being enrolled in pre-school. At the same time the father rented out their former home and discussed with the mother the same of possessions such as her desk and the child’s car seat. 

The father’s actions went beyond such steps as to attempt a reconciliation or reach an agreed voluntary return. 

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

The Judge found that, if the risk posed by the mother’s allegations of domestic violence were taken at their highest, there would be a grave risk of harm within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b).

However,  in this case these risks would be ameliorated by the protective measures offered by the father, including organizing separate accommodation so the parties no longer have to live together and undertakings not to remove the child from her care or to intimidate, threaten, harass or pester her. Moreover, the Judge said he was entitled to assume that the New Zealand courts and authorities are able to assist in protecting the mother and child from any risk of domestic violence. 

The mother also argued that the circumstances that she and the child would face on a return to New Zealand would be intolerable, for example, that the rental property procured by the father was in a part of New Zealand unfamiliar to them. Whilst the Judge accepted that the circumstances of a return would be far from comfortable for the mother and child, they fall significantly short of the grave risk of harm within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b).