Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
B, Re (1980 Hague Convention: Article 13(A)/(B)) [2025] EWCA Civ 1603 (11 December 2025)
Court of Appeal dismissed a mother’s Hague Convention appeal, upholding a return order to Romania and finding no acquiescence or grave-risk exception.
The mother failed to prove any of her allegations of domestic abuse, coercive control, or sexual abuse against the father on the balance of probabilities. The court found the mother repeatedly lied, fabricated or embellished her evidence, and engaged in alienating behaviours to obstruct the children’s relationship with the father. The father’s evidence was consistent and corroborated by independent sources. The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children are at risk of significant emotional harm due to the mother’s conduct.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed a mother’s appeal in a Hague Convention child abduction case, upholding a return order for B to Romania subject to protective measures.
KN v KR [2025] EWHC 2338 (Fam) (28 August 2025)
Hague Convention return application concerning a child removed from Australia to the UK. The court ordered return to Australia, rejecting the Article 13(b) defence on the basis of protective measures.
S and T, Re (Children: Return to Italy) (No.2) [2025] EWHC 1685 (Fam) (03 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed a mother’s application to set aside a Hague return order requiring two children to be returned to Italy, and refused a stay.
J v K [2025] EWHC 2175 (Fam) (26 June 2025)
The High Court ordered a 15-month-old child’s return to Portugal under the Hague Convention, subject to protective measures addressing alleged coercive control.
The defence under Article 13(b) was not made out. There is no immediate risk to DC if returned to Ireland and into the father's care in the context of a welfare enquiry, and the mother will remain in England, so any deterioration in her mental health will be managed. Protective measures offered are sufficient. Separation from mother and sibling, while far from ideal, does not reach the threshold of intolerability. The high bar set by Article 13(b) is not reached.
Source excerpt
Neither the Article 13(b) grave risk/intolerable situation defence nor the child's objections defence was made out on the evidence. The boys' allegations and objections, even taken at their highest, did not reach the threshold to refuse return. The court exercised its discretion in favour of a return order, considering the recent welfare evaluation, policy considerations, and the availability of protective measures.
Source excerpt
W and E (Habitual Residence), Re [2024] EWHC 2596 (Fam) (15 October 2024)
Hague Convention child abduction case in which the court held the children had become habitually resident in England by May 2024 and refused summary return to New Zealand.
The appeal was allowed because the judge erred in holding the parties to a purported agreement when there was no accord on the effectiveness of protective measures in Texas, relied inappropriately on Rose/Xydhias, failed to address the mother's change of position, and approved incompatible orders. Effective protective measures are essential for a return order under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention.
Source excerpt
Explore more
