H v E

H v E

The court found that the father acquiesced to the children's retention in the UK based on clear and unambiguous messages in July 2022, and that there was a grave risk of harm to the children if returned to Sweden due to serious and longstanding domestic abuse, social isolation, and inadequate protective measures. Both defences under Article 13 were established, and the court exercised its discretion to refuse the father's application for return, giving greater weight to the welfare of the children and the risk of harm than to the policy of prompt return.

Parties
Applicant: H; Respondent: E
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction (hague Convention) / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Father's application for return of the children to Sweden refused.
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Hague Convention 1980, Article 13 Defences, Acquiescence, Grave Risk of Harm, Protective Measures, Discretionary Return
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Hague Convention 1980 Article 13 Defences Acquiescence Grave Risk of Harm Protective Measures +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H

Applicant

E

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction (hague Convention) / Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the father acquiesced to the children's retention in the UK under Article 13(a) of the 1980 Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether there is a grave risk that returning the children to Sweden would expose them to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation under Article 13(b)
  3. 3 Whether the protective measures offered by the father are sufficient to mitigate any grave risk of harm

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the father acquiesced to the children's retention in the UK based on clear and unambiguous messages in July 2022, and that there was a grave risk of harm to the children if returned to Sweden due to serious and longstanding domestic abuse, social isolation, and inadequate protective measures. Both defences under Article 13 were established, and the court exercised its discretion to refuse the father's application for return, giving greater weight to the welfare of the children and the risk of harm than to the policy of prompt return.

Court Disposition

Father's application for return of the children to Sweden refused.