AFFAIRE

Télécharger le texte complet EN

Nom de l'affaire

C v D [2025] EWHC 3131 (Fam)

Référence INCADAT

HC/E/UKe 1662

Juridiction

Pays

Royaume-Uni - Angleterre et Pays de Galles

Degré

Première instance

États concernés

État requérant

États-Unis d'Amérique

État requis

Royaume-Uni - Angleterre et Pays de Galles

Décision

Date

17 November 2025

Statut

Définitif

Motifs

Risque grave - art. 13(1)(b)

Décision

Retour refusé

Article(s) de la Convention visé(s)

13(1)(b)

Article(s) de la Convention visé(s) par le dispositif

13(1)(b)

Autres dispositions

-

Jurisprudence | Affaires invoquées

-

Publiée dans

-

RÉSUMÉ

Résumé disponible en EN

Facts

The father was born in England and moved to the USA in 1991. He had dual British and US citizenship. The mother was born in Jamaica but raised in England. She also had dual British and US citizenship. 

The parties met in 2015 in the USA. They began to live together in 2016 in Los Angeles and in 2017 they married in California. 

They had two children, born in 2018 and 2021. At the time of the hearing the children were 7 and 4 years old, respectively. The children were habitually resident in the USA. In June 2025 the mother brought the children to England in breach of the father’s rights of custody. In July 2025 the father filed for divorce in LA and applied to the England and Wales Central Authority under the 1980 Hague Convention for the return of the children to the USA. 

The mother argued that they should be allowed to remain in the UK, relying on Article 13(1)(b) based on the father’s violence, sexual assault, coercive and controlling behaviour. 

Ruling

Return refused.

Grounds

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

Having decided that he could not discount the mother’s allegations of domestic abuse, the Judge approached the case on the basis that the allegations are taken at their highest.

The central risk related to the deterioration in the mother’s mental health and the father’s unsuitability to take over as primary carer (pending investigation of the allegations). 

Evidence about the mother’s mental health was very clear. She was currently able to function and provide the children with a proper level of care. However, a psychiatric report showed that it was more likely than not that a return to the USA would lead to a deterioration in the mother’s mental health which was likely to impact on her ability to care for the children. 

The Judge held that returning the children to the USA would expose them to psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation, meeting the Article 13(1)(b) threshold. 

Regarding the protective measures proposed by the father, they were not sufficient to ameliorate the grave risk that the children would be exposed to on a return to the USA.