AB v CD (Abduction; Undertakings)

AB v CD (Abduction; Undertakings)

The removal of the children from Kazakhstan was wrongful under the Hague Convention 1980 as they were habitually resident there and the father had rights of custody. The mother failed to establish the Article 13(b) grave risk of harm defence; there was insufficient evidence of risk to the children, and protective measures and the Kazakhstani legal system provide adequate protection. The child's objections were not sufficient to prevent return, being focused on living with the father rather than return to Kazakhstan, and were influenced by the mother. The court ordered the return of the children, with implementation stayed until a written agreement reflecting undertakings is lodged with...

Parties
Applicant: AB; Respondent: CD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Return order granted, implementation stayed pending agreement
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Hague Convention 1980, Protective Measures, Children's Objections, Article 13(b) Defence
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Hague Convention 1980 Protective Measures Children's Objections Article 13(b) Defence

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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Applicant

CD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the removal of the children from Kazakhstan was wrongful under the Hague Convention 1980
  2. 2 Whether Article 13(b) grave risk of harm defence is established
  3. 3 Whether the child's objections defence is established

Ratio Decidendi

The removal of the children from Kazakhstan was wrongful under the Hague Convention 1980 as they were habitually resident there and the father had rights of custody. The mother failed to establish the Article 13(b) grave risk of harm defence; there was insufficient evidence of risk to the children, and protective measures and the Kazakhstani legal system provide adequate protection. The child's objections were not sufficient to prevent return, being focused on living with the father rather than return to Kazakhstan, and were influenced by the mother. The court ordered the return of the children, with implementation stayed until a written agreement reflecting undertakings is lodged with...

Court Disposition

Return order granted, implementation stayed pending agreement

Orders

  • The children shall be returned to Kazakhstan on the later of 30 March 2021 or 7 days after lodging of the agreement in the Kazakh court.
  • F's undertakings to be incorporated in the English order, with specified amendments.