F v L & Ors

F v L & Ors

Father's rights under Zimbabwean law are access rights, not rights of custody; no express or implied right to veto removal from jurisdiction. Hague Convention distinguishes custody from access. Application fails at Article 3 threshold; father does not have rights of custody. Even if Article 3 satisfied, T is settled in England, acquiescence not proven, grave risk not established, child's objections insufficient, Article 20 not incorporated, and discretion would not be exercised to return.

Parties
Applicant: F; First Respondent: L; Second Respondent: S; Third Respondent: R; Fourth Respondent (child, Through Guardian): T
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Family (child Abduction) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Hague Convention, Custody Rights, Summary Return, Settlement, Acquiescence, Grave Risk, Child's Objections, Human Rights
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Hague Convention Custody Rights Summary Return Settlement Acquiescence +3 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 7 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F

Applicant

L

First Respondent

S

Second Respondent

R

Third Respondent

T

Fourth Respondent (child, Through Guardian)

Procedural Posture

Family (child Abduction) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the father's rights amount to 'rights of custody' under Article 3 of the Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether the child T is settled in the UK under Article 12
  3. 3 Whether the father acquiesced to T's removal under Article 13(a)

Ratio Decidendi

Father's rights under Zimbabwean law are access rights, not rights of custody; no express or implied right to veto removal from jurisdiction. Hague Convention distinguishes custody from access. Application fails at Article 3 threshold; father does not have rights of custody. Even if Article 3 satisfied, T is settled in England, acquiescence not proven, grave risk not established, child's objections insufficient, Article 20 not incorporated, and discretion would not be exercised to return.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for summary return under Hague Convention dismissed
  • Application for summary return under inherent jurisdiction declined