F v M
The Article 13(b) defence was made out due to the severe and genuine impact of M's mental health, lack of immigration status, and absence of adequate protective measures, which would render X's return intolerable. Habitual residence had transferred to New Zealand, and X's objections did not meet the threshold required by the Convention.
- Parties
- Applicant: F; Respondent: M
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 23 July 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for return order dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Habitual Residence, Child's Objections, Article 13(b) Defence, Protective Measures, Mental Health Impact
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
F
Applicant
M
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Was the child X habitually resident in New Zealand at the time of removal?
- 2 Does X object to being returned to New Zealand within the meaning of the Hague Convention?
- 3 Is there a grave risk that return would expose X to physical or psychological harm or place him in an intolerable situation under Article 13(b)?
Ratio Decidendi
The Article 13(b) defence was made out due to the severe and genuine impact of M's mental health, lack of immigration status, and absence of adequate protective measures, which would render X's return intolerable. Habitual residence had transferred to New Zealand, and X's objections did not meet the threshold required by the Convention.
Court Disposition
Application for return order dismissed
Orders
- No return order is made under the Hague Convention
- X remains in England with M
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment