S (1980 Hague Convention; Habitual Residence; Article 13), Re

S (1980 Hague Convention; Habitual Residence; Article 13), Re

By the end of October 2022, S was habitually resident in England, so her retention was not wrongful under the 1980 Hague Convention. Alternatively, the mother acquiesced in S’s retention. Even if not, S objects to return and is of sufficient age and maturity, and return would expose her to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or intolerable situation. Protective measures in Japan would not mitigate the risk. The application for summary return is refused.

Parties
Applicant (mother): MY; First Respondent (father): FT; Second Respondent (child): SYT (by her Children’s Guardian, Kay Demery, Cafcass)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Law – Child Abduction (1980 Hague Convention) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application for summary return refused
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Wrongful Retention, Article 13 Hague Convention, Grave Risk of Harm, Child's Objections, Consent, Acquiescence, Protective Measures
Family Law International Child Abduction Habitual Residence Wrongful Retention Article 13 Hague Convention Grave Risk of Harm Child's Objections Consent +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MY

Applicant (mother)

FT

First Respondent (father)

SYT (by her Children’s Guardian, Kay Demery, Cafcass)

Second Respondent (child)

Procedural Posture

Family Law – Child Abduction (1980 Hague Convention) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the child S wrongfully retained in England under Article 3 of the 1980 Hague Convention?
  2. 2 Did the mother consent or acquiesce to S’s retention in England?
  3. 3 Does S object to return and is she of sufficient age and maturity?

Ratio Decidendi

By the end of October 2022, S was habitually resident in England, so her retention was not wrongful under the 1980 Hague Convention. Alternatively, the mother acquiesced in S’s retention. Even if not, S objects to return and is of sufficient age and maturity, and return would expose her to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or intolerable situation. Protective measures in Japan would not mitigate the risk. The application for summary return is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for summary return refused

Orders

  • No order for return of S to Japan
  • S to remain in England; English courts to consider her future