Letts v Letts

Proceedings under the Hague Convention are intended to be swift and summary. They should not be prolonged indefinitely while one party pursues unresolved immigration enquiries. Where a significant period has elapsed and the court lacks current evidence about a child’s wishes, feelings or objection to return, it should obtain fresh evidence before making a final decision. Earlier provisional views form part of the procedural history but do not determine the later exercise of discretion. The matter must be considered afresh on the evidence available at the final hearing.

The proceedings concerned the proposed summary return of two children to America. The mother’s ability lawfully to enter, leave and re-enter America remained unresolved after several months of enquiries and adjournments. The elder child, aged about 13 and a half, had previously expressed an objection to return, but the evidence about her current wishes and feelings was no longer up to date. The court was also informed that her anxieties had increased and that she was receiving counselling and specialist support.

The judge therefore had to decide whether the matter should be further adjourned, whether fresh evidence was required, and how the case should proceed to a final hearing.

1. Further hearing directed. The proceedings were to be listed for a one-day hearing on 25 July 2018, contemplated as the final hearing, before a full High Court judge. The case required resolution as soon as reasonably possible because Hague Convention proceedings are intended to be swift and summary.
2. Fresh evidence required. It would be wrong and unconscionable to make a final decision without current evidence about the elder child’s wishes, feelings and any objection to return. More than six months had elapsed since her earlier meeting with the CAFCASS officer, and her circumstances and anxieties might have changed materially.
3. Earlier views were provisional. The judge’s views expressed on 13 December 2017 had expressly been provisional. That earlier judgment should be read by the later judge as part of the history and narrative of the case, but the discretion had to be considered and exercised completely afresh on the evidence available at the later hearing.
4. Immigration enquiries. The mother had made a good-faith visit to America, but the court would not reasonably expect her to continue travelling repeatedly while the proceedings remained unresolved. Whether any further immigration enquiries justified another adjournment was left for determination at the fuller hearing.
5. Judicial continuity. Continuity had importance, but the earlier hearing had become part of the history of the case. It was not problematic for another High Court judge to determine the matter afresh.

This was a further first-instance hearing in continuing Hague Convention proceedings. The judge referred to an earlier provisional judgment delivered on 13 December 2017, published as [2017] EWHC 3654 (Fam) under the name ROL v HML. The present hearing did not finally determine the return application.