CASO

Descargar texto completo EN

Nombre del caso

S v Q [2025] EWHC 2381

Referencia INCADAT

HC/E/UKe 1673

Tribunal

País

Reino Unido - Inglaterra y Gales

Instancia

Primera Instancia

Estados involucrados

Estado requirente

Mauricio

Estado requerido

Reino Unido - Inglaterra y Gales

Fallo

Fecha

18 September 2025

Estado

Definitiva

Fundamentos

Grave riesgo - art. 13(1)(b)

Fallo

Restitución ordenada

Artículo(s) del Convenio considerados

13(1)(b)

Artículo(s) del Convenio invocados en la decisión

-

Otras disposiciones

-

Jurisprudencia | Casos referidos

-

Publicado en

-

SUMARIO

Sumario disponible en EN

Facts

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.

Ruling

Return ordered.

Grounds

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

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.