England and Wales Case Law

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

AB v BA

AB v BA [2025] EWHC 3562 (Fam) (30 July 2025)

The High Court ordered the summary return of two children to Sweden under the Hague Convention, rejecting settlement, child-objection, and grave-risk defences.

• Hague convention 1980
• Summary return of children
• Habitual residence
• Article 12 settlement exception
• Article 13(b) grave risk of harm
• Children's objections

Read case analysis

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

The High Court ordered the return of two children to Israel under the Hague Convention, rejecting Article 13(b) and children’s objections defences, with a delayed return and practical support.

• International child abduction
• Custody
• Hague convention
• Article 13(b)
• Children's objections
• International-child-abduction

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

H v O (Art 13(b) and Domestic Abuse)

The court found a grave risk that return to the Netherlands would expose the children to physical or psychological harm or place them in an intolerable situation due to serious domestic abuse, lack of effective protective measures, and uncertain immigration status; protective measures offered by the father were insufficient and unenforceable, and the exception under Article 13(b) was made out. The court exercised its discretion to refuse summary return.

Source excerpt

• International child abduction
• Domestic abuse
• Protective measures
• Children's objections
• Immigration status
• Hague convention

Read case analysis

H v O & Ors (Art 13(b) and Domestic Abuse)

H v O & Ors (Art 13(b) and Domestic Abuse) [2025] EWHC 114 (Fam) (29 January 2025)

Summary return to the Netherlands refused under Article 13(b); the court found a grave risk of harm from domestic abuse and inadequate protective measures.

• International child abduction
• Summary return
• Protective measures
• Domestic abuse
• Children's objections
• Immigration status

Read case analysis

W and E (Habitual Residence), Re

The High Court refused a father’s Hague Convention application to return two boys to New Zealand, finding they were habitually resident in England and that Article 13(b) was made out.

• Habitual residence
• Hague convention
• Child custody
• Summary return
• Children's objections
• Psychological harm

Read case analysis

W and E (Habitual Residence), Re

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.

• Habitual residence
• Child abduction
• 1980 hague convention
• Article 13(b) exception
• Children's objections
• Summary return

Read case analysis

JC v SS

The court found that the father had given clear and unequivocal consent to the children's permanent relocation to England, as evidenced by a signed written agreement and his conduct. He did not withdraw this consent prior to removal or retention. The mother reasonably relied on this consent. The court further found that the father acquiesced in the children's remaining in England. The children, each of sufficient age and maturity, expressed clear objections to return. There was also a grave risk that return would expose the children to harm due to the mother's mental health vulnerabilities an…

Source excerpt

• Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction
• Consent and acquiescence
• Children's objections
• Grave risk of harm
• Summary return applications

Read case analysis

HR (Parallel Child Abduction and Asylum Proceedings), Re

The mother failed to establish either the Article 13(b) exception (grave risk/intolerable situation) or that the children’s objections under Article 13(2) should prevent their return. The trauma and disruption on return, including possible short-term foster care, do not reach the threshold of intolerability. The children’s objections are given reduced weight as they are based on an unfounded narrative. The policy of the Convention, the children’s nationality, and lack of ties to the UK support return. A return order is made.

Source excerpt

• 1980 hague convention
• Child abduction and custody act 1985
• Asylum and immigration
• Children's objections
• Protective measures
• Comity

Read case analysis