F v M (Hague Convention: Grave Risk) (Rev1) [2024] NICA 38 (15 May 2024)

F v M (Hague Convention: Grave Risk) (Rev1) [2024] NICA 38 (15 May 2024)

The Court of Appeal found that persistent domestic violence, repeated breaches of protective orders, psychological abuse, and the father's lack of candour and denial of wrongdoing established a grave risk of harm and intolerable situation for the children and mother. Protective measures in the US were deemed insufficient due to the father's history of non-compliance. The return order was refused under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention.

Citation
[2024] NICA 38
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: F; Defendant/appellant: M; Interested Parties: Children (represented by Official Solicitor)
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
15 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (child Abduction Under Hague Convention) / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; return order refused.
Legal Topics
Hague Convention, Child Abduction, Grave Risk Exception, Domestic Violence, Protective Measures
Family Law International Law Child Protection Hague Convention Child Abduction Grave Risk Exception Domestic Violence Protective Measures

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F

Plaintiff/respondent

M

Defendant/appellant

Children (represented by Official Solicitor)

Interested Parties

Procedural Posture

Appeal (child Abduction Under Hague Convention) / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether grave risk of harm or intolerable situation under Article 13(b) Hague Convention is established
  2. 2 Whether the eldest child's objection should prevent return
  3. 3 Whether a stay of the return order should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that persistent domestic violence, repeated breaches of protective orders, psychological abuse, and the father's lack of candour and denial of wrongdoing established a grave risk of harm and intolerable situation for the children and mother. Protective measures in the US were deemed insufficient due to the father's history of non-compliance. The return order was refused under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; return order refused.

Orders

  • Return order under Hague Convention set aside; children not to be returned to the United States.
  • No further welfare assessment to be made under Article 16 Hague Convention.