W v X

W v X

The court found W did not consent to Y's permanent relocation to England, nor acquiesce in her retention. Wrongful retention occurred on 30 June 2021 when X applied for settled status. Y's habitual residence remained Italy. X failed to prove grave risk of psychological harm or intolerable situation, as protective measures and undertakings mitigate risks. Y objects to return and is of sufficient maturity, but her views are influenced and do not outweigh Hague policy considerations. The court exercises discretion and orders summary return to Italy, subject to protective financial measures.

Parties
Applicant: W; Respondent: X
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Hague Convention Child Abduction Summary Return / Final Judgment
Outcome
Summary return of the child to Italy ordered.
Legal Topics
Hague Convention 1980, Wrongful Retention, Habitual Residence, Consent and Acquiescence, Child Objections, Psychological Harm, Intolerable Situation, Protective Measures
Family Law International Child Abduction Hague Convention 1980 Wrongful Retention Habitual Residence Consent and Acquiescence Child Objections Psychological Harm +2 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 7 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W

Applicant

X

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Hague Convention Child Abduction Summary Return / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the father consent to the child living permanently in the United Kingdom?
  2. 2 When did wrongful retention occur?
  3. 3 What was the child's habitual residence immediately prior to retention?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found W did not consent to Y's permanent relocation to England, nor acquiesce in her retention. Wrongful retention occurred on 30 June 2021 when X applied for settled status. Y's habitual residence remained Italy. X failed to prove grave risk of psychological harm or intolerable situation, as protective measures and undertakings mitigate risks. Y objects to return and is of sufficient maturity, but her views are influenced and do not outweigh Hague policy considerations. The court exercises discretion and orders summary return to Italy, subject to protective financial measures.

Court Disposition

Summary return of the child to Italy ordered.

Orders

  • Y to be returned to Italy after the end of the current academic year in England.
  • W to pay €8,000 into X's solicitors' bank account for living and accommodation expenses as a condition precedent to return.