G v K

G v K

The child was habitually resident in Japan at the time of the father's pre-emptive retention on or about 18 June 2025. The retention was wrongful under the Hague Convention. The father failed to establish an Article 13(b) defence, as the evidence did not demonstrate grave risk of harm or intolerable situation, and protective measures and undertakings offered by the mother were sufficient. The child should be returned to Japan.

Parties
Applicant: G; Respondent: K
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; child to be returned to Japan.
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Wrongful Retention, Article 13(b) Defence, Protective Measures, Parental Responsibility
Family Law International Child Abduction Habitual Residence Wrongful Retention Article 13(b) Defence Protective Measures Parental Responsibility

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 6 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G

Applicant

K

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the child was habitually resident in Japan at the time of alleged wrongful retention
  2. 2 Whether the father's retention of the child in England was wrongful under the Hague Convention
  3. 3 Whether Article 13(b) defence is established (grave risk of harm/intolerable situation)

Ratio Decidendi

The child was habitually resident in Japan at the time of the father's pre-emptive retention on or about 18 June 2025. The retention was wrongful under the Hague Convention. The father failed to establish an Article 13(b) defence, as the evidence did not demonstrate grave risk of harm or intolerable situation, and protective measures and undertakings offered by the mother were sufficient. The child should be returned to Japan.

Court Disposition

Application granted; child to be returned to Japan.

Orders

  • Child to be returned to Japan with undertakings as proposed by the mother.
  • Father may accompany the child to Japan and remain pending determination of litigation there.