England and Wales Case Law

T v S

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the father gave clear and unequivocal consent to the mother removing the child to England, and that consent remained operative at the time of removal. Additionally, the court found that returning the child to New Zealand would expose the child to a grave risk of harm and an intolerable situation due to the mother's mental health vulnerabilities, lack of support, and exposure to domestic abuse, and that the protective measures offered by the father were insufficient. Both Article 13(a) and 13(b) defences were established, and the court exe…

Source excerpt

• Hague convention 1980
• Summary return of child
• Consent to removal
• Grave risk of harm
• Protective measures
• Domestic abuse

Read case analysis

London Borough of Ealing v Ella & Anor

London Borough of Ealing v Ella & Anor [2026] EWFC 14 (15 January 2026)

The court found threshold crossed at the start of proceedings but held Amy should remain with her mother under a 12-month supervision order, not move to special guardianship.

• Special guardianship orders
• Supervision orders
• Threshold criteria
• Parental substance misuse
• Mental health and parenting
• Engagement with professionals

Read case analysis

C v D

The court found that the respondent mother established a grave risk that the return of the children to the USA would expose them to psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation, primarily due to the likely deterioration of her mental health upon return, which would impair her ability to care for the children, and the inadequacy of the protective measures offered by the applicant. The Article 13(b) threshold was met, and the applicant's proposals did not sufficiently ameliorate the risk. Accordingly, the application for summary return was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Hague convention 1980
• Article 13(b) grave risk exception
• Protective measures
• Domestic abuse
• Mental health and parenting
• Summary return of children

Read case analysis

C v D

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.

• Hague convention 1980
• Article 13(b) grave risk defence
• Protective measures
• Domestic abuse
• Mental health and parenting
• Summary return applications

Read case analysis

Sheffield City Council v The Mother & Ors

The mother has not made the necessary changes to her parenting capacity, continues to lack insight into the risks to the children, and is unable to provide consistent, safe, and nurturing care even for one child. The threshold criteria under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 are met. The welfare of the children requires that all three be placed together in long-term foster care. The proposed reduction in contact is justified to support the children's stability and emotional adjustment.

Source excerpt

• Care orders
• Parental responsibility
• Child welfare
• Contact arrangements
• Threshold criteria
• Foster care

Read case analysis

London Borough of Waltham Forest v A & Anor

The mother cannot safely or independently meet B’s needs due to her mental health, lack of insight, cognitive limitations, and inability to implement professional advice despite extensive support. No realistic support package or family placement is available. The threshold for a care order is met, and B’s welfare requires a placement order for adoption. The mother’s consent to adoption is dispensed with as B’s welfare so requires.

Source excerpt

• Care orders
• Placement orders
• Adoption
• Parental responsibility
• Mental health and parenting
• Threshold criteria

Read case analysis

H, Re

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that H sustained a skull fracture likely caused by a non-accidental single blunt trauma (inflicted blow or significant fall from height) between 23 December 2023 and 6 January 2024. However, the evidence was insufficient to identify M or F as perpetrator on the balance of probabilities. There is a real possibility that either M or F inflicted the injury. The perpetrator failed to seek timely medical attention, but the court cannot definitively attribute culpability to either parent.

Source excerpt

• Non-accidental injury
• Threshold criteria
• Pool of perpetrators
• Failure to protect
• Expert evidence
• Mental health and parenting

Read case analysis

AB, Re

AB, Re [2025] EWFC 492 (B) (17 October 2025)

Family proceedings about AB, where the court found threshold met but rejected an immediate return to the mother. AB was ordered to live with his father, with supervision and further planning.

• Care orders
• Supervision orders
• Child arrangements orders
• Domestic abuse
• Mental health and parenting
• Threshold criteria

Read case analysis

London Borough of Waltham Forest v A & Anor

London Borough of Waltham Forest v A & Anor [2023] EWFC 342 (B) (08 September 2025)

The mother cannot safely or independently meet B's needs due to her mental health, lack of insight, cognitive limitations, and inability to implement professional advice despite extensive support. No realistic support package or family alternative exists. B's welfare requires a care and placement order with a plan for adoption, and the mother's consent to adoption is dispensed with as nothing else will do to secure B's welfare.

Source excerpt

• Care orders
• Placement orders
• Adoption
• Parental responsibility
• Threshold criteria
• Welfare checklist

Read case analysis

Q, Re (Care Order at Home : Exceptional Reasons)

Q, Re (Care Order at Home : Exceptional Reasons) [2025] EWFC 468 (B) (04 September 2025)

The Family Court made a care order for Q to remain at home with his parents, finding exceptional reasons and ongoing risks that required local authority oversight.

• Care orders
• Supervision orders
• Threshold criteria
• Parental responsibility
• Neurodiversity in parenting
• Substance misuse

Read case analysis