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
The Supreme Court held that a child’s views can be considered under article 13(b) of the Hague Convention, but still dismissed the appeal and upheld refusal of return.
C v D [2025] EWHC 3131 (Fam) (17 November 2025)
The High Court refused the father’s Hague Convention return application after finding an Article 13(b) grave risk from the mother’s likely mental health deterioration.
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.
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
FC v MS [2025] EWHC 1030 (Fam) (22 April 2025)
The High Court ordered DC’s return to Ireland under the Hague Convention, rejecting the mother’s Article 13(b) grave risk defence.
The court found that the high threshold for grave risk or intolerable situation under Article 13(b) was not met. The potential for the mother’s imprisonment in Sweden, while carrying risk of harm to the children, was not sufficient to make their return intolerable, especially given the Swedish court’s recent welfare orders, the possibility of non-custodial outcomes, and the availability of the father to provide care. The mother’s refusal to mitigate her position and cooperate with Swedish authorities was a significant factor. The Swedish court is the appropriate forum for welfare decisions.
Source excerpt
GK v HX [2024] EWHC 3463 (Fam) (19 November 2024)
The High Court ordered the return of a 5-year-old boy to Australia under the Hague Convention, rejecting the mother’s Article 13(b) grave-risk defence.
The court found that the mother’s refusal to return to the USA was genuine and rooted in severe mental health concerns, and that the resulting separation from the child’s primary carer would expose the child to grave psychological harm. Protective measures would not sufficiently ameliorate the risk. The Article 13(b) defence was established and the court declined to exercise its discretion to order a return.
Source excerpt
H v A [2024] EWHC 997 (Fam) (16 April 2024)
The High Court ordered the children’s return to Sweden under the Hague Convention, rejecting the mother’s Article 13(b) grave risk defence.
Explore more
