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
FG, Re (A Child: Return Order to Lithuania) [2026] EWHC 1050 (Fam) (01 May 2026)
Hague Convention return proceedings concerning a 6-year-old child. The court found Lithuania was the child’s habitual residence and ordered return.
Article 13(b) grave risk exception is not satisfied; the court confidently discounts risk of intolerable situation for C upon return, especially given Ohio Family Court's welfare determination and proposed protective measures. C's objections are noted but carry limited weight due to age, maturity, and influence by mother. Discretion exercised in favour of return, subject to undertakings ensuring 'soft landing' and minimising risk of maternal incarceration or immediate separation.
Source excerpt
The removal of the children from Zimbabwe was wrongful under Article 3 of the Hague Convention because both parents had rights of custody under Zimbabwean law and the father's consent was required for removal. The grave risk and child objection exceptions were not established to the requisite standard. Accordingly, a return order was made for the children to return to Zimbabwe.
Source excerpt
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.
RS and TU (Children: Return Order to Zimbabwe), Re [2025] EWHC 3352 (Fam) (17 December 2025)
The High Court ordered the return of two Zimbabwean children, finding their removal to the UK was wrongful under the Hague Convention and rejecting grave risk and child-objection defences.
The removal of the children from Italy to England was wrongful under Article 3 of the 1980 Hague Convention due to the mother's deception and lack of valid consent from the father. Alternatively, even if the move was not wrongful ab initio, the mother's actions constituted repudiatory retention as early as 1 May 2024. The children remained habitually resident in Italy throughout. The Article 13(b) grave risk defence was not made out, as protective measures and financial support are sufficient to mitigate any risk. The court orders the summary return of the children to Italy.
Source excerpt
S & T, Re (Children: Return to Italy) [2025] EWHC 835 (Fam) (08 April 2025)
The High Court ordered the return of two young children to Italy under the Hague Convention, finding wrongful removal or, alternatively, wrongful retention.
C (A Child: Summary Return to Pakistan), Re [2025] EWHC 1427 (Fam) (04 March 2025)
The High Court ordered the summary return of a 17-month-old child to Pakistan, finding that his removal to the UK was wrongful and not consented to by the mother.
The court held it retained jurisdiction over a child wrongfully removed to Northern Cyprus, dismissed the Children Act proceedings, and stayed the wardship proceedings.
CX (Jurisdiction: Wrongful Removal to Northern Cyprus) [2025] EWFC 27 (18 February 2025)
The court held it had jurisdiction over child arrangements and wardship proceedings after a wrongful removal to Northern Cyprus, then dismissed the s8 case and stayed wardship.
Explore more
