IB v MM

IB v MM

The mother failed to prove that the father gave clear and unequivocal consent to the permanent relocation of AM to the UK; the defence of acquiescence was not made out. However, the court found that return would expose AM to a grave risk of psychological harm and place her in an intolerable situation due to the likely separation from her sibling DA, the mother's trauma, and the children's settled position in the UK. AM's objections to return were genuine, strongly held, and congruent with her welfare. The court exercised its discretion to refuse summary return under the Hague Convention.

Parties
Applicant: IB; Respondent: MM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Application for summary return dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Hague Convention 1980, Summary Return, Habitual Residence, Consent and Acquiescence, Grave Risk of Harm, Child's Objections, Sibling Separation
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Hague Convention 1980 Summary Return Habitual Residence Consent and Acquiescence Grave Risk of Harm +2 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IB

Applicant

MM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the removal and retention of AM in the UK was wrongful under the Hague Convention 1980
  2. 2 Whether the father consented or acquiesced to the removal or retention
  3. 3 Whether there is a grave risk that return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or place her in an intolerable situation

Ratio Decidendi

The mother failed to prove that the father gave clear and unequivocal consent to the permanent relocation of AM to the UK; the defence of acquiescence was not made out. However, the court found that return would expose AM to a grave risk of psychological harm and place her in an intolerable situation due to the likely separation from her sibling DA, the mother's trauma, and the children's settled position in the UK. AM's objections to return were genuine, strongly held, and congruent with her welfare. The court exercised its discretion to refuse summary return under the Hague Convention.

Court Disposition

Application for summary return dismissed

Orders

  • Father's application for summary return of AM to Germany is dismissed
  • No summary return order is made under the Hague Convention