LS (A Child), Re

Where a child has been wrongfully removed and no defence to summary return is advanced or succeeds, the court must order return under the Hague Convention and Brussels II Revised. The court may make practical arrangements, including a short delay, to facilitate an orderly return. That discretion does not extend to postponing return for a substantial period where it would undermine the requirement for prompt determination and implementation. A proposed delay must be assessed against the policy of restoring the pre-abduction position and the availability of an immediate return arrangement.

The applicant father sought the return of his four-year-old son to Lithuania after the respondent mother removed him from Lithuania and brought him to England. The mother initially relied on the defence in Article 13(b), but withdrew that defence and accepted that the removal was wrongful and that no defence could properly prevent summary return.

The remaining issue was whether return should be delayed for six weeks so that the mother, who was heavily pregnant, could accompany the child. The father was willing and able to travel to England within seven days to collect the child.

1. The mother accepted that the child had been wrongfully removed and that no defence under Article 13(b) was available. The court was therefore required to order the child’s summary return under the Hague Convention and Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003.
2. The court may adopt sensible practical arrangements to facilitate the orderly implementation of a summary return order. That flexibility concerns implementation of the return and does not permit the court to replace summary return with a substantially later or otherwise different arrangement.
3. A six-week delay was outside the permissible latitude. Six weeks was itself the maximum period expected for determining and implementing cases within the Brussels II Revised regime, and the proceedings had already lasted about three months.
4. The child had spent much of his life living with his father and paternal grandmother in Lithuania, where his needs had apparently been met. Return to his father would therefore substantially restore the pre-abduction position. The father’s ability and willingness to collect the child within seven days further weakened the justification for delay.
5. The court ordered that the child be returned to Lithuania no later than midnight on 17 June 2015. Unless the parties agreed otherwise, the return was to be effected by the father travelling to England and collecting him.

First-instance proceedings in the High Court (Family Division). No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.