E (Abduction: Article 13b Deferred Return Order)

E (Abduction: Article 13b Deferred Return Order)

The court found the child was habitually resident in Spain at the time of removal, engaging the Hague Convention. However, Article 13(b) defence was made out: return would expose the child to grave psychological harm and intolerable situation due to her extreme vulnerability, attachment issues, and chaotic parental...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: RM; Respondent: EP; Subject Child: EM; Interested Party: Local Authority (LA1)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Habitual Residence, Article 13(b) Hague Convention, Protective Measures, Grave Risk of Harm, Intolerable Situation
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Habitual Residence Article 13(b) Hague Convention Protective Measures Grave Risk of Harm Intolerable Situation

Source-derived case record

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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RM

Applicant

EP

Respondent

EM

Subject Child

Local Authority (LA1)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the child habitually resident in Spain immediately before abduction?
  2. 2 Does Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention apply, i.e., would return expose the child to grave risk of harm or intolerable situation?
  3. 3 Are adequate protective measures available to mitigate risk on return?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the child was habitually resident in Spain at the time of removal, engaging the Hague Convention. However, Article 13(b) defence was made out: return would expose the child to grave psychological harm and intolerable situation due to her extreme vulnerability, attachment issues, and chaotic parental history. No adequate protective measures were available, either in Spanish public care or with the father, and indefinite deferral was not permissible. The father's application for return was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Father's application for return of child to Spain dismissed.
  • Care proceedings in England automatically revived.