M v B

M v B

The mother clearly and unequivocally consented to the children's removal to the UK for permanent relocation, as evidenced by contemporaneous messages, conduct, and the WhatsApp call. The Article 13(b) grave risk defence was not made out as sufficient protective measures were available and accepted by the mother. B's objections to return were authentic and strong, but the court, exercising its discretion, declined to order return, giving weight to the mother's consent, the children's settled position, and welfare considerations.

Parties
Applicant: M; Respondent: B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Abduction (hague Convention) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application for summary return refused
Legal Topics
Hague Convention 1980, Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, Consent Under Article 13(a), Grave Risk of Harm Article 13(b), Child's Objections Article 13, Protective Measures, Discretion in Return Orders
Family Law International Child Abduction Hague Convention 1980 Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 Consent Under Article 13(a) Grave Risk of Harm Article 13(b) Child's Objections Article 13 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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant

B

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Abduction (hague Convention) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the mother consent to the children's removal to the UK under Article 13(a) of the 1980 Hague Convention?
  2. 2 Is there a grave risk that return would expose the children to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation under Article 13(b)?
  3. 3 Do the children object to return and have sufficient maturity for their views to be considered under Article 13?

Ratio Decidendi

The mother clearly and unequivocally consented to the children's removal to the UK for permanent relocation, as evidenced by contemporaneous messages, conduct, and the WhatsApp call. The Article 13(b) grave risk defence was not made out as sufficient protective measures were available and accepted by the mother. B's objections to return were authentic and strong, but the court, exercising its discretion, declined to order return, giving weight to the mother's consent, the children's settled position, and welfare considerations.

Court Disposition

Application for summary return refused

Orders

  • Mother's application for summary return of the children to the Czech Republic is dismissed
  • Parties to agree a draft order reflecting the judgment