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
X (A Child), Re [2026] EWCA Civ 518 (30 April 2026)
Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the summary return of a 14-year-old child to South Africa under the Hague Convention, rejecting Article 13(b) and welfare-based challenges.
Court of Appeal dismissed appeals against a Hague Convention return order for a 14-year-old child, holding the judge had properly weighed the child’s objections and welfare.
The High Court refused to order Z’s return to Hong Kong under the Hague Convention, holding that his objections were genuine, rational, and decisive.
Z (A Child), Re (Retention from Hong Kong: Child's Objections) [2026] EWHC 996 (Fam) (28 April 2026)
Hague Convention child abduction case in which the court refused to order Z's return to Hong Kong, relying on his objections and maturity.
C (A Child), Re (Abduction: Grave Risk: Asylum Claim: Child's Objections) [2025] EWHC 3461 (Fam) (17 December 2025)
The High Court ordered C’s return to Ohio under the Hague Convention, rejecting grave risk and child objections arguments, with return protected by undertakings.
The father failed to establish, on the evidence, that there is a grave risk of harm or intolerable situation if P is returned to Poland; the allegations lacked sufficient detail and substance, and effective protective measures are available. Although P objects to return and is of sufficient maturity, her objections are primarily the result of influence from the father and sister, not authentically her own. Convention policy and welfare considerations outweigh P's objections, and the discretion is exercised in favour of return.
Source excerpt
M v F (Art 13 Thresholds Not Met) [2025] EWHC 2629 (Fam) (17 October 2025)
Hague Convention child abduction case: the court ordered Y and Z returned to Brazil, rejecting Art 13 objections and grave-risk arguments.
AB’s objections are not sufficiently authentic and are likely influenced by the mother; the alleged harm and intolerable situation do not meet the Article 13 threshold; the Netherlands is the jurisdiction for any change to care arrangements; protective measures including therapy are available; return order is appropriate under Convention policy.
Source excerpt
Father's rights under Zimbabwean law are access rights, not rights of custody; no express or implied right to veto removal from jurisdiction. Hague Convention distinguishes custody from access. Application fails at Article 3 threshold; father does not have rights of custody. Even if Article 3 satisfied, T is settled in England, acquiescence not proven, grave risk not established, child's objections insufficient, Article 20 not incorporated, and discretion would not be exercised to return.
Source excerpt
F v L & Ors (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 2190 (Fam) (20 August 2025)
Hague Convention child abduction claim dismissed after the court held the father had access rights only, not rights of custody, under Zimbabwean law.
Explore more
