MB v TB (Art 13 Alleged Risk of Oppressive Litigation)

MB v TB (Art 13 Alleged Risk of Oppressive Litigation)

The mother failed to establish, on the evidence, that summary return of L to Israel would expose her to grave risk of physical or psychological harm or place her in an intolerable situation under Article 13(b). The evidence from expert reports and CAFCASS showed L was resilient, had positive relationships with both parents, and had not suffered appreciable harm from prior litigation. The Israeli courts are competent to protect L's welfare. The summary return order is therefore mandatory.

Parties
Applicant: MB; Respondent: TB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction Application Under the Hague Convention / Final Judgment
Outcome
Summary return of L to Israel ordered
Legal Topics
Hague Convention, Child Custody, Summary Return, Grave Risk Exception, Parental Alienation, Oppressive Litigation
Family Law International Child Abduction Hague Convention Child Custody Summary Return Grave Risk Exception Parental Alienation Oppressive Litigation

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MB

Applicant

TB

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction Application Under the Hague Convention / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the summary return of L to Israel would expose her to grave risk of physical or psychological harm or otherwise place her in an intolerable situation under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether the father's litigation conduct in Israel constitutes oppressive litigation justifying non-return
  3. 3 Whether alleged parental alienation or actions by the father's new wife justify non-return

Ratio Decidendi

The mother failed to establish, on the evidence, that summary return of L to Israel would expose her to grave risk of physical or psychological harm or place her in an intolerable situation under Article 13(b). The evidence from expert reports and CAFCASS showed L was resilient, had positive relationships with both parents, and had not suffered appreciable harm from prior litigation. The Israeli courts are competent to protect L's welfare. The summary return order is therefore mandatory.

Court Disposition

Summary return of L to Israel ordered

Orders

  • L to return to Israel in time for new school term commencing 24 April 2019
  • Father to pay travel costs for mother and L