M v F

M v F

The evidence does not establish that M consented or acquiesced to S living in London, nor does it meet the high threshold for grave risk of harm or intolerability under Article 13(b). S's habitual residence remains in Kyiv, Ukraine, where she is most integrated and her stability is best met. The summary return of S to Ukraine is ordered.

Parties
Applicant: M; Respondent: F
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; summary return ordered
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Hague Convention 1980, Habitual Residence, Summary Return, Grave Risk Exception, Consent and Acquiescence

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant

F

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / First Instance Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the child S is habitually resident in Ukraine or London
  2. 2 Whether the mother consented or acquiesced to S living in London
  3. 3 Whether there is a grave risk of harm or intolerability if S is returned to Ukraine under Article 13(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence does not establish that M consented or acquiesced to S living in London, nor does it meet the high threshold for grave risk of harm or intolerability under Article 13(b). S's habitual residence remains in Kyiv, Ukraine, where she is most integrated and her stability is best met. The summary return of S to Ukraine is ordered.

Court Disposition

Application granted; summary return ordered

Orders

  • S to be returned summarily to Ukraine to live with her mother, M