G v L (Return Order)

Under the 1980 Hague Convention, Article 13 exceptions are narrow exceptions to the ordinary consequence of wrongful removal or retention, not defences that make the conduct lawful.

An Article 13(b) assessment is prospective and requires the court to assess the cumulative allegations, the nature and likelihood of the risk, and its potential consequences. Protective measures must be examined concretely and may include undertakings supported by safeguards in the requesting state.

A child’s objection must be directed to return to the country of habitual residence, although country and caregiving circumstances may be inseparable in some cases. If the threshold is met, the court retains a broad discretion whether to order return.

The mother applied under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1984 for the summary return of her 12-year-old son to Italy under the 1980 Hague Convention. The child had been habitually resident in Italy and was wrongfully retained in England by his father after an agreed holiday.

The father relied on Article 13(b), alleging a grave risk of physical or psychological harm arising from the mother’s partner, and on the Article 13 objection exception. The central issues were whether the alleged circumstances created a grave risk, whether proposed protective measures were sufficient, and whether the child objected to return with sufficient age and maturity.

1. Return order. The court made a summary return order under Article 12 of the 1980 Hague Convention, to be implemented within 21 days of the hearing and no later than 7 January 2026.
2. Article 13(b). The court assessed the allegations cumulatively and prospectively, considering the nature of the risk, the likelihood of its materialising and the consequences for the child. On the allegations taken at their highest, the evidence was sufficiently detailed and substantial that, if true, it could constitute a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or an intolerable situation.
3. The court then considered management of that risk. The proposed measures were examined in concrete terms, including the mother’s undertakings that the mother’s partner would leave the family home or that the child would live temporarily with his maternal grandmother, that there would be no contact pending an Italian social-services risk assessment, and that the mother would co-operate with that assessment. The court placed weight on the involvement of Italian social services, therapeutic support, school oversight and the availability of Italian authorities and courts. The undertakings were therefore sufficient to address the identified risk.
4. Child’s objections. The court applied the two-stage approach under Article 13. The child’s objection was directed to the mother’s partner and his mother’s perceived failure to protect him, rather than to return to Italy as such. Alternatively, the child had not attained the degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to take account of his views, because he had not reflected on the short- and long-term consequences of remaining in England and separation from his family.
5. Even if the objection and maturity thresholds had been satisfied, the discretion would have been exercised in favour of return. Relevant considerations included the child’s life, schooling and family relationships in Italy, the proper location for any welfare or child-protection investigation, comity, deterrence of abduction, the desirability of prompt restorative return, and the father’s deliberate wrongful retention.