Q v R

Q v R

E remained habitually resident in Ukraine as of 24 June 2022; risks of return to Town B are below grave risk threshold due to geographic distance from conflict, functioning courts, and mother's undertakings to protect E and promote father's relationship; Article 13(b) exception not established.

Parties
Applicant: Q; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Final Judgment After One Day Hearing
Outcome
Application granted; order for return of E to Ukraine.
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Summary Return, Article 13(b) Exception, Protective Measures
Family Law International Child Abduction Habitual Residence Summary Return Article 13(b) Exception Protective Measures

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Q

Applicant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Hague Convention Child Abduction Application / Final Judgment After One Day Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the child E habitually resident in Ukraine as of 24 June 2022?
  2. 2 Does the Article 13(b) exception apply due to grave risk of harm or intolerable situation if E returns to Ukraine?
  3. 3 Are protective measures sufficient to mitigate any risk?

Ratio Decidendi

E remained habitually resident in Ukraine as of 24 June 2022; risks of return to Town B are below grave risk threshold due to geographic distance from conflict, functioning courts, and mother's undertakings to protect E and promote father's relationship; Article 13(b) exception not established.

Court Disposition

Application granted; order for return of E to Ukraine.

Orders

  • E to be returned to Ukraine by a date to be determined around half-term.
  • Contact arrangements to continue in the meantime.