B (A Child) (Abduction: Acquiescence: Article 13(b)), Re

B (A Child) (Abduction: Acquiescence: Article 13(b)), Re

The father acquiesced in B's retention in England, as evidenced by his conduct and communications over a five-month period, during which he neither asserted his rights nor objected to the mother integrating B into life in England. This acquiescence defeats the application for summary return under Article 13(a) of the Hague Convention.

Parties
Applicant: PB; Respondent: JV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction (hague Convention) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Wrongful Retention, Habitual Residence, Acquiescence, Grave Risk of Harm, Article 13(b) Defence, Discretion Under Hague Convention
Family Law International Child Abduction Wrongful Retention Habitual Residence Acquiescence Grave Risk of Harm Article 13(b) Defence Discretion Under Hague Convention

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PB

Applicant

JV

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction (hague Convention) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was there wrongful retention under the Hague Convention?
  2. 2 Did the child acquire habitual residence in England?
  3. 3 Did the father acquiesce in the retention?

Ratio Decidendi

The father acquiesced in B's retention in England, as evidenced by his conduct and communications over a five-month period, during which he neither asserted his rights nor objected to the mother integrating B into life in England. This acquiescence defeats the application for summary return under Article 13(a) of the Hague Convention.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order for return of B to New Zealand
  • B to remain in England