England and Wales Case Law

AB v BA

The children are not settled in the United Kingdom due to temporary accommodation, ongoing asylum proceedings, concealment, and lack of emotional stability. No valid Article 13 exceptions are established: the children's views do not amount to objections to return, and allegations of grave risk of harm from domestic abuse, separation, or practical circumstances are confidently discounted based on lack of credible evidence and recent Swedish welfare determinations. Protective measures in Sweden are sufficient. Mandatory return order under Article 12 applies.

Source excerpt

• Hague convention
• Child custody
• Habitual residence
• Summary return
• Article 12 settlement
• Article 13 exceptions

Read case analysis

R (Children: Setting aside Hague return order)

The discrepancies between the protective regime intended by the English court and the US Order constitute a fundamental change in circumstances, undermining the basis for the original return order. The children are no longer assured they will not be placed with their father upon return, contrary to the core protection promised. The appeal is allowed and the matter adjourned for the US court to reconsider protective arrangements.

Source excerpt

• Hague convention
• Child custody
• Protective measures
• Setting aside orders

Read case analysis

B (1980 Hague Convention: Article 13(a)/(b)), Re

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.

• 1980 hague convention
• Article 13(a) acquiescence
• Article 13(b) grave risk
• Protective measures
• Domestic abuse
• Child custody

Read case analysis

M v F (Art 13 Thresholds Not Met)

Neither the child's objections nor grave risk of harm exceptions under Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention are established. Y's stated preferences do not amount to an objection with sufficient strength, conviction, or rationality, and are found to be the product of undue influence by the paternal family. Allegations of grave risk, including threats in Brazil and abuse, are unsubstantiated or confidently discounted. A summary return order is mandated. Interim protective orders are justified under Article 11 of the 1996 Hague Convention pending implementation, due to ongoing asylum appeals.

Source excerpt

• International child abduction
• Hague convention 1980
• Child custody
• Summary return orders
• Protective measures
• Children's objections

Read case analysis

EF v EF

Hague Convention child abduction case: the mother failed to prove consent or acquiescence, and the Article 13(b) defence failed. Return to Romania ordered with protective measures.

• International child abduction
• Hague convention 1980
• Child custody
• Protective measures
• Consent and acquiescence
• Article 13(b) defence

Read case analysis

F (A Child), Re (Habitual Residence)

F (A Child), Re (Habitual Residence) [2025] EWCA Civ 911 (16 July 2025)

The Court of Appeal held that a child retained habitually resident in England was in fact habitually resident in Colombia, because the judge below used the wrong legal approach.

• Habitual residence
• Hague convention 1980
• Wrongful retention
• Child custody
• Habitual-residence
• Hague-convention-1980

Read case analysis

Y (The Father) v Y (The Mother) (Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, Re)

Y (The Father) v Y (The Mother) (Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, Re) [2025] EWHC 1598 (Fam) (06 May 2025)

Hague Convention return application concerning two children retained in England. The court rejected Article 13(b) and children's objection defences and ordered return to Israel.

• International child abduction
• Hague convention 1980
• Child custody
• Article 13(b) grave risk exception
• Children's objections
• Protective measures

Read case analysis

M v F & Anor

Fact-finding judgment in child welfare proceedings. The court rejected the mother’s allegations against the father, accepted most of the father’s case, and found the mother’s conduct risked emotional harm to T.

• Child custody
• Parental responsibility
• Medical neglect
• Fabricated or induced illness (fii)
• Emotional harm
• Domestic abuse allegations

Read case analysis

FN v AM

The High Court held it retained jurisdiction over a child welfare application and ordered the father to secure lifting of a travel ban by 30 June 2025.

• Jurisdiction
• Habitual residence
• Child custody
• Travel ban
• Enforcement of foreign orders
• Habitual-residence

Read case analysis

AA and BB (Children: Return Order: Dubai), Re

Summary return to Dubai is refused because it is not in the best interests of AA and BB. The children are settled in England, their principal carer would be financially and emotionally dependent on DD in Dubai, and would likely suffer mental health deterioration, adversely affecting the children. Dubai's legal system does not prioritise best interests in relocation applications, and CC would face significant barriers to effective access to the Dubai court. The children would face further upheaval and instability upon return. Welfare decisions should be made in England.

Source excerpt

• Child custody
• Summary return
• Non-hague convention jurisdiction
• Relocation
• Best interests of the child
• Prohibited steps order

Read case analysis