J (A child : Hague Child Abduction Convention: Physical Chastisement and Homophobic Abuse) [2018] EWFC 85 (14 December 2018)

J (A child : Hague Child Abduction Convention: Physical Chastisement and Homophobic Abuse) [2018] EWFC 85 (14 December 2018)

The removal of J from Portugal was wrongful under the Hague Convention. The respondent mother did not give clear and unequivocal consent to J's permanent relocation. J's objections were to returning to his mother's care, not to Portugal itself, and did not meet the threshold for the child's objection defence. Although there was evidence of physical chastisement by the mother, adequate protective arrangements could be made for J's return to Portugal, specifically by placing him in the care of his aunt. Therefore, none of the defences under Article 13(a) or (b) were established, and the Convention required J's summary return to Portugal.

Citation
[2018] EWFC 85
Parties
Applicant: PG; Respondent: PR
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Application Under the 1980 Hague Convention (child Abduction) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for summary return of J to Portugal granted.
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Hague Convention 1980, Council Regulation (ec) No.2201/2003, Summary Return of Child, Consent Defence, Child's Objection Defence, Grave Risk of Harm Defence
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Hague Convention 1980 Council Regulation (ec) No.2201/2003 Summary Return of Child Consent Defence Child's Objection Defence +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PG

Applicant

PR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under the 1980 Hague Convention (child Abduction) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the removal of J from Portugal to England was wrongful under the Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether the respondent mother consented to J's removal
  3. 3 Whether J objects to return to Portugal and has sufficient maturity for his views to be considered

Ratio Decidendi

The removal of J from Portugal was wrongful under the Hague Convention. The respondent mother did not give clear and unequivocal consent to J's permanent relocation. J's objections were to returning to his mother's care, not to Portugal itself, and did not meet the threshold for the child's objection defence. Although there was evidence of physical chastisement by the mother, adequate protective arrangements could be made for J's return to Portugal, specifically by placing him in the care of his aunt. Therefore, none of the defences under Article 13(a) or (b) were established, and the Convention required J's summary return to Portugal.

Court Disposition

Application for summary return of J to Portugal granted.

Orders

  • J to be returned to Portugal forthwith, with arrangements to be agreed by the parties to ensure J is settled with his aunt (MTDG) in time for return to school in January.
  • F (father) to return J to Portugal and place him in the care of MTDG.