C v M & Anor.

C v M & Anor.

The court found that X's objections to return were strong, authentic, and not the result of coaching, and that ordering her return would be inimical to her welfare and place her at grave risk of harm. Ordering Y's return alone would place him at grave risk of emotional harm and in an intolerable situation due to separation from his mother and sister. The protective measures proposed were insufficient to mitigate these risks. The policy considerations of the Hague Convention, while important, were outweighed by the welfare considerations and the evidence in this case. The court exercised its discretion not to order the return of either child to Mauritius.

Parties
Applicant: C; 1st Respondent: M; 2nd Respondent: X
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Re Hearing Following Set Aside of Return Order
Outcome
Application for return of children to Mauritius refused
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Hague Convention 1980, Child's Objections Defence, Grave Risk of Harm Defence, Protective Measures, Summary Proceedings
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Hague Convention 1980 Child's Objections Defence Grave Risk of Harm Defence Protective Measures Summary Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Applicant

M

1st Respondent

X

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Re Hearing Following Set Aside of Return Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order the return of children X and Y to Mauritius under the 1980 Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether the Article 13 child's objections defence is established for X
  3. 3 Whether the Article 13b grave risk of harm defence is established for X and Y

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that X's objections to return were strong, authentic, and not the result of coaching, and that ordering her return would be inimical to her welfare and place her at grave risk of harm. Ordering Y's return alone would place him at grave risk of emotional harm and in an intolerable situation due to separation from his mother and sister. The protective measures proposed were insufficient to mitigate these risks. The policy considerations of the Hague Convention, while important, were outweighed by the welfare considerations and the evidence in this case. The court exercised its discretion not to order the return of either child to Mauritius.

Court Disposition

Application for return of children to Mauritius refused

Orders

  • No order for the return of X or Y to Mauritius under the Hague Convention
  • No order for separation of the siblings