Recherche de décisions

The mother was an Italian national and the father a British national. They met in London in 2006 and married in England in 2012 before moving to Italy to start a family. They had a child in 2013, age 12 at the time of the hearing. 

The parents separated in 2016. The mother alleged that the father had a problem with alcohol and drugs and was abusive towards her.

They reached a separation agreement in 2017 which provided for joint custody and that the child live with the mother. The mother said there were continued difficulties with contact and the father’s ability to co-parent, including continued abuse of alcohol. 

In Italy the child lived with the mother, her new partner and their son, born in 2022 (the child’s half-brother). 

The father moved back to England around 2022 and the parents reached an agreement that the child would spend time with his father there during the school holidays. It was agreed that the child would go to England from 29 June until 12 August 2025, but the father failed to return the child to Italy. 

The mother filed an application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention for the return of the child.

The father agued that there was a grave risk of harm to the child due to abuse from the mother’s new partner and that the child objected to being returned.

Return ordered. Though there was a risk of harm to the child within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b), this risk could be sufficiently managed by protective measures. Furthermore, the child did not object to returning to Italy per se and that he had not attained a degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of his views. 

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

The Judge noted that it was important to characterise the exceptions as exceptions, rather than ‘defences’. The exceptions to return in Article 13 are narrow exceptions to the ordinary consequences of wrongful removal, they are not ‘defences’ that act to exonerate a parent’s wrongful conduct.

In this case, taking the allegations as a whole, the Judge was satisfied that the harm evidenced by the child’s allegations was of such a nature, and of sufficient detail and substance, that if true it could constitute a grave risk that he would be exposed to physical or psychological harm or otherwise placed in an intolerable situation were he to be returned to Italy.

However, the Judge was also satisfied that appropriate protective measures could be put in place to sufficiently mitigate the risk (either by the mother’s partner leaving the family home or the child going to live with the maternal grandfather, and the involvement of Italian Social Services). 

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

The child’s objections centred on his desire not to return to the care of his step-father and his reticence regarding his mother’s ability to protect him. He expressed no strong views with regard to returning to Italy itself. He had only positive things to say about the country and was able to speak clearly about enjoying his mother’s company and the company of his wider family. 

The Judge was unable to accept the assertion that, as a 12 year old boy, the child’s view and actions were entirely independent of influence by his father. It was clear from the evidence that as early as April 2025 the father had the intention of bringing the child to England and not returning him to Italy. There were also no referrals to the police of social services in Italy prior to the child’s arrival in England suggesting that the father sought to engineer a relocation “by the back door”.

The Judge held that the child did not object to returning to Italy per se and that he had not attained a degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of his views. He went on to say that, even if he was wrong in these conclusions, he was satisfied that the court should nonetheless require the child’s summary return to Italy in the exercise of its discretion under Article 13.