DE (A Child: Inward Return Order From India), Re

In a non-Convention child abduction case, an inward return order is made only after a summary welfare determination. The child’s welfare is paramount. Habitual residence and wrongful removal inform that evaluation but do not determine the outcome.

The court must decide what factual inquiry is necessary and proportionate. Where domestic abuse is alleged, the court should consider the relevance and extent of any fact-finding under Practice Direction 12J. A return may be ordered despite short-term disruption where it best serves the child’s welfare, including by restoring a seriously damaged relationship with the left-behind parent.

The mother applied for her one-year-old daughter to remain a ward of court and to be returned from India to England and Wales. The child, her parents and the paternal family were Indian nationals. The child had been born in England but had lived in India with her father and paternal grandparents since March 2025.

Morgan J had previously determined that the child was habitually resident in England and Wales and that this court had jurisdiction. The issues at this hearing were whether England and Wales was the appropriate forum and, if so, whether an urgent return order should be made. Domestic abuse, coercion, abduction, welfare, immigration and the progress of parallel Indian proceedings were considered.

1. Forum. The court had jurisdiction but was required to consider whether proceedings should be stayed under Family Law Act 1986, section 5(2). Applying the approach in V v M (A Child) (Stranding: Forum Conveniens: Anti-Suit Injunction) [2019] EWHC 466, the court considered the connections with each forum, the evidence and witnesses, participation, legal assistance, the progress of the proceedings and the ability of each court to determine the issues. England and Wales was the appropriate forum because the evidence had been fully explored here and the father had not meaningfully engaged in India.
2. Non-Convention return. India was not a party to the 1980 Hague Convention. A summary return application therefore meant a return order following a summary welfare determination, applying the guidance in Re J (Child Returned Abroad: Convention Rights) [2006] UKHL 40, Re NY (A Child) [2019] UKSC 49 and J v J (Return to Non-Hague Convention Country) [2021] EWHC 2412.
3. The child’s welfare was paramount. The first six matters in the welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 were relevant. Habitual residence and wrongful removal informed, but did not determine, the welfare evaluation.
4. The court was required to undertake only such fact-finding as was necessary and proportionate to the welfare decision. It declined to determine allegations of modern slavery because of the ongoing police investigation and limited evidence. It did determine the allegations necessary to the welfare evaluation, finding abduction, coercion, obstruction of contact and serious domestic abuse by the father.
5. Applying Re H-N and Others (children) (domestic abuse: Finding of fact hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448, domestic abuse could include coercive or controlling behaviour and its harmful effect on the child, not merely violence directly inflicted on the child. A pattern of abuse was relevant to the child’s welfare.
6. The child had suffered serious emotional harm through abduction and obstruction of her relationship with her mother and remained at risk in the father’s care. The short-term disruption of removal from India was outweighed by the need to restore the relationship with the mother. The child was ordered to be returned urgently to England and Wales within six weeks, with the paternal aunt directed to travel to India and return the child to the mother’s care.

This was a first-instance application. Morgan J had earlier determined the child’s habitual residence and the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. The present hearing determined forum and welfare issues and made the return order.