Recherche de décisions

The mother and father married in 2010 and lived in Paris. They had a son in 2014 and separated later that year. 

The father went to Israel without the mother and child. There was a lot of conflict between the parents in the years that followed and the mother had made many allegations against the father or harassment and abusive language. 

In March 2020 the mother and maternal grandfather brought the child to live in England. Prior to this the child had lived in France all of his life. The visit was said to have been for a short period but any return to France was, at that time, prevented by the imposition of Covid-19 protection arrangements in both countries. After the initial lockdown restrictions were lifted, the child, the mother and grandfather stayed on in England. Their whereabouts were unknown to the child’s father for many months. Eventually the father traced them and Hague Convention proceedings were commenced in England in November 2020.

At first instance the Judge ordered the return of the child to France. The mother appealed this decision with respect to Article 13(1)(b) of the Convention. 

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. 

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

The mother argued that she was the victim of domestic abuse by the father and that his abandonment of her and the child when he moved to Israel with further evidence of his abusive nature. She said that her and the child were evicted from their family home by the actions of the father, who controlled the property company that owned the home. The father was generally aggressive towards her and the fact that he had been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder demonstrated his propensity for unpredictable extreme behaviour.

The mother also said that that she would not herself go back to France, even if the court determined that her child should do so and that he had to go back without her.

At first instance the judge determined that Article 13(1)(b) could only be established on the basis that the mother would not return to France. The judge then determined that she would return to France if the child were ordered to go there and, on the basis of that decision, it must follow that Article 13(1)(b) was not made out.

The Court of Appeal did not find that the first instance Judge had erred in his judgment and dismissed the appeal.