A Mother v A Father & Ors

In a Hague Convention child-abduction application, acquiescence is a question of fact determined on the evidence as a whole. The court may consider relevant events occurring after an earlier return order, unless the order expressly limits the inquiry. The Article 13(b) exception requires assessment of future grave risk, including whether protective measures can sufficiently address it. A child’s objection is a factual gateway; once established, the discretion is at large. The court must weigh Convention policy, delay, the child’s welfare, the authenticity and strength of objections, and the consequences of separating siblings. A close sibling relationship may establish grave risk for a child who would be returned alone where effective protective arrangements are unavailable.

The applicant sought the summary return of two children to France under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, incorporating the 1980 Hague Convention. The children had been removed from France by their father in August 2022. Following a consent order in December 2022, one child was to remain in England and the other was to return to France. The order was later set aside, and the mother renewed her application for the return of both children.

The father and the children relied on acquiescence, grave risk of harm, and the children’s objections. The central issues were whether those exceptions were established and how the court should exercise its Convention discretion.

1. Acquiescence. The children were habitually resident in France and had been wrongfully removed. Under Article 13(a), acquiescence was a factual question, proved by the father on the balance of probabilities. The court was entitled to consider all admissible and relevant evidence up to the hearing. The mother’s consent order, subsequent conduct, and failure to pursue X’s return until April 2023 established acquiescence to X’s removal.
2. Grave risk. Applying Article 13(b), the court considered the allegations of harm at their highest and focused on the future situation on return. X would face a grave risk of psychological harm, but protective measures could be provided through the French administrative and judicial systems. Y would not independently face such a risk. However, returning Y without X would create a grave risk of psychological harm because of their exceptionally close bond and the absence of effective measures to maintain meaningful contact.
3. Objections. X strongly and consistently objected to return and was of sufficient age and maturity for her views to be taken into account. Y also objected, although his views were affected by the prospect of separation from X. The gateway was satisfied for both children.
4. Discretion. The discretion was at large. Convention policy remained important, but the lengthy proceedings reduced the weight attributable to prompt return. The court also considered the children’s integration in England, their education, their objections, the risk that they might abscond, the sibling relationship, and the mother’s lack of direct contact. The balance favoured non-return of both children.
5. The application for summary return to France was dismissed.