G (No 2) (A Child: Return from USA), Re

In deciding an application for a child’s return from a non-Convention state, the court must determine on the individual facts how extensive the welfare inquiry should be. A summary determination is appropriate where the available evidence permits a considered decision and further investigation would cause unacceptable delay or harm. The child’s welfare remains paramount. A mature teenager’s clearly expressed and genuinely held wishes are likely to carry considerable weight, absent good reason to the contrary. The court must balance the risks of return against those inherent in remaining abroad, taking account of emotional and psychological harm as well as physical welfare.

The mother applied for the return of G, aged nearly 15, who had moved to the United States with the father pursuant to a consent order permitting relocation of both children. G’s sibling remained in England after visa difficulties, and G subsequently expressed a consistent and intense wish to return. The mother’s application was initially dismissed for want of jurisdiction, but that decision was reversed on appeal by Harrison J, who joined G as a party and appointed a Guardian.

The father sought a fuller welfare inquiry before any return decision. The Guardian supported determining the application without substantial delay. The central issues were whether to adjourn for further investigation and, if not, whether G’s return was in her best interests.

1. Scope of inquiry. The court’s inquiry in a return application must be tailored to the individual facts. A summary determination may be made where the evidence is sufficient for a considered decision and further investigation would cause disproportionate delay or distress. The court applied the guidance in Re NY (A Child) [2019] UKSC 49 and Re A and B (Children: Summary Return: Non-Convention State) [2022] EWCA Civ 1664.
2. Welfare and wishes. Under sections 1(1) and 1(3)(a) of the Children Act 1989, welfare was paramount and G’s wishes and feelings had to be considered in light of her age and understanding. The genuinely held, consistent and strongly expressed views of a mature child approaching 15 were entitled to considerable weight.
3. Assessment of the evidence. Although the written evidence concerning historical allegations required caution because it had not been tested orally, G’s wishes were independently supported by her messages, letters, school evidence, police evidence and the Guardian’s assessment. The court considered the proposed risks of return to England, but found them comparatively speculative and outweighed by the substantial emotional and psychological risks of continued residence in the United States.
4. Disposition. Further inquiry was unnecessary and would prolong litigation for at least six to nine months, contrary to G’s welfare. The court ordered G’s return to England between the end of the United States school term and 30 June 2025. Wardship continued, G was placed in the mother’s care during wardship, emergency travel documents were to be sought, and the order and judgment were to be provided to relevant authorities.

1. High Court (Family Division): On 6 March 2025 HHJ Raeside dismissed the mother’s application for want of jurisdiction.
2. High Court: Harrison J allowed the mother’s appeal on 9 April 2025 and held that the court had jurisdiction, reported as Re G [2025] EWHC 911 (Fam). Permission for the father’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused on 12 May 2025.
3. High Court (Family Division): Mr Justice Peel determined the return application and ordered G’s return to England.