F v M

F v M

The court found that the removal of the children was wrongful under the Hague Convention, but that both children had expressed objections to return which, despite some influence from the mother, were genuinely and strongly held. The Article 13(b) grave risk of harm defence was not established on the evidence. The children’s welfare, their need for stability, and their progress in the UK were determinative. The objections to return were afforded decisive weight, and the application for summary return was refused.

Parties
Applicant: F; Respondent: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Family / Judgment on Application for Summary Return of Children Under the Hague Convention
Outcome
Application for summary return refused
Legal Topics
Hague Convention 1980, Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, Summary Return of Children, Article 13(b) Grave Risk of Harm, Article 13(2) Child Objections, Habitual Residence, Parental Rights of Custody
Family Law International Child Abduction Hague Convention 1980 Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 Summary Return of Children Article 13(b) Grave Risk of Harm Article 13(2) Child Objections Habitual Residence +1 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F

Applicant

M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Judgment on Application for Summary Return of Children Under the Hague Convention

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the removal of the children from Türkiye to the UK was wrongful under the Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether the children object to return and have sufficient maturity (Article 13(2))
  3. 3 Whether there is a grave risk of harm or intolerability if returned (Article 13(b))

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the removal of the children was wrongful under the Hague Convention, but that both children had expressed objections to return which, despite some influence from the mother, were genuinely and strongly held. The Article 13(b) grave risk of harm defence was not established on the evidence. The children’s welfare, their need for stability, and their progress in the UK were determinative. The objections to return were afforded decisive weight, and the application for summary return was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for summary return refused

Orders

  • Children to remain in the United Kingdom
  • No order for summary return to Türkiye