B v N

B v N

X's habitual residence was in Germany at the relevant time. The mother did not establish clear and unequivocal consent or acquiescence by the father for X to remain in the UK. The Article 13(b) defence was not made out, as the mother can accompany X to Germany, claim asylum, and receive state support, mitigating any risk of harm or intolerable situation.

Parties
Applicant: B; Respondent: N
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction and Custody / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Consent and Acquiescence, Article 13(b) Defence, Hague Convention, Child Welfare
Family Law International Child Abduction Habitual Residence Consent and Acquiescence Article 13(b) Defence Hague Convention Child Welfare

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B

Applicant

N

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction and Custody / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the child X's habitual residence in Germany at the time of alleged wrongful retention?
  2. 2 Did the father consent or acquiesce to X remaining in the UK?
  3. 3 Is there a grave risk that return would expose X to harm or intolerable situation under Article 13(b)?

Ratio Decidendi

X's habitual residence was in Germany at the relevant time. The mother did not establish clear and unequivocal consent or acquiescence by the father for X to remain in the UK. The Article 13(b) defence was not made out, as the mother can accompany X to Germany, claim asylum, and receive state support, mitigating any risk of harm or intolerable situation.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • X to be returned to Germany under the Hague Convention
  • Parties to discuss final terms and timing of return; court to resolve any disagreements