TS v DMM

TS v DMM

C was habitually resident in Poland immediately before removal; the removal was wrongful under Article 3. Protective measures offered by the father, including undertakings, neutralise any grave risk under Article 13(b), so the defence is not satisfied and return must be ordered.

Parties
Applicant: TS; Respondent: DMM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 Application (hague Convention 1980) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; summary return ordered.
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Summary Return, Protective Measures, Grave Risk Exception, Parental Intentions
Family Law International Child Abduction Habitual Residence Summary Return Protective Measures Grave Risk Exception Parental Intentions

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TS

Applicant

DMM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 Application (hague Convention 1980) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the child C habitually resident in Poland or England at the time of removal?
  2. 2 Does a return to Poland expose C to grave risk of harm or intolerable situation under Article 13(b)?
  3. 3 Are the protective measures offered sufficient to neutralise any risk?

Ratio Decidendi

C was habitually resident in Poland immediately before removal; the removal was wrongful under Article 3. Protective measures offered by the father, including undertakings, neutralise any grave risk under Article 13(b), so the defence is not satisfied and return must be ordered.

Court Disposition

Application granted; summary return ordered.

Orders

  • C to be returned to Poland forthwith, no later than 4pm 10 June 2022.
  • Father to pay for flights for mother, C, and P to Poland.