L (a child) Abduction Turkey Protective Measures under Hague 96

In a Hague Convention return application, the court must assess the alleged risk at its highest where the allegations are prima facie credible, and then consider whether effective protective measures can sufficiently address that risk. The court need not determine disputed allegations where adequate protection is available in the child’s country of habitual residence. Protective measures may include undertakings, confidential accommodation, restrictions on contact and orders recognised under the 1996 Hague Convention. A local authority may independently oppose return under article 13(b) where it has a genuine child-protection concern, even without custody rights. The court should keep evidence and hearings focused and proportionate. The child was ordered to return to Turkey because the article 13(b) defence was not established.

The father applied under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 for the return to Turkey of his two-year-old daughter, who had been removed from Turkey by her mother. The parties agreed that the child had been habitually resident in Turkey and that the removal was wrongful.

The mother relied on article 13(b), alleging domestic abuse and grave risk of physical or psychological harm or an intolerable situation on return. Norfolk County Council was joined as a second respondent and advanced an independent concern that return might expose the child to renewed cohabitation or contact between the parents. The central issue was whether effective protective measures were available in Turkey.

1. Return order. The child’s return to Turkey was mandatory unless the mother established the article 13(b) defence. The defence failed.
2. Article 13(b) approach. Following Re E [2011] 2 FLR 758, the court took the allegations at their highest where prima facie credible, asked whether return would expose the child to grave physical or psychological harm or an intolerable situation, and then considered how the child could be protected. The court did not need to resolve the parents’ factual dispute before deciding whether effective safeguards existed.
3. Protective measures. The evidence established that Turkish law provided accessible and effective measures protecting women and children from domestic violence. The father’s undertakings, including non-violence, confidential accommodation, financial support and restrictions on contact, were binding and enforceable in Turkey. The court could make interim protective orders under article 11 of the 1996 Hague Convention, but those measures would lapse when the Turkish authorities assumed responsibility.
4. Local authority role. A local authority could independently oppose return under article 13(b), despite having no custody rights. It had a duty to protect children in its area, and it would make no sense if it could not raise a genuine protection concern in an extreme case. The court nevertheless regarded the local authority’s intervention as unusual on the facts.
5. Evidence and case management. The court was entitled to examine the Home Office country report in context and gave greater weight to the detailed expert evidence concerning Turkish law and procedure. The court emphasised that Hague cases should be focused, expeditious and proportionate, with shorter hearings and limited documentation.
6. Final order. The child was ordered to return to Turkey. The court declined to determine the general burden-of-proof question concerning the sufficiency of protective measures.