Re C (Art 13(b): Summary Return to Lithuania)

In an application for summary return under the 1980 Hague Convention, the Article 13(b) exception requires the respondent to prove, on the balance of probabilities, a grave risk that return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or place the child in an intolerable situation.

The court must evaluate disputed allegations within the limits of summary proceedings, assess their cumulative effect where several strands are relied upon, and consider protective measures. Delay is relevant only through the strict requirements of Article 13(b); settlement under Article 12 does not itself establish intolerability.

The mother applied under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 for the summary return of her six-year-old child, C, to Lithuania. The father had taken C to England in August 2024 without the mother’s consent.

The father accepted wrongful removal, the mother’s custody rights, absence of consent and absence of acquiescence. He relied only on Article 13(b), alleging grave risk arising from the mother’s alcohol use and mental-health history, together with the impact of delay. The central issue was whether return after about 20 months in England would expose C to grave harm or an intolerable situation.

1. Summary return ordered. The father failed to establish the Article 13(b) exception. C was to return swiftly to Lithuania in the father’s care, subject to the existing Lithuanian order and agreed practical arrangements.
2. The burden was on the father, on the balance of probabilities. The court applied the restricted Article 13(b) threshold explained in Re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) [2011] UKSC 27 and the structured approach summarised in Re IG (A Child) (Child Abduction: habitual residence: Article 13(b)) [2021] EWCA 1123. The court had to consider whether the allegations, assumed to be true where factual disputes could not be resolved summarily, could establish grave risk, and then whether protective measures could address it.
3. The mother’s serious 2024 mental-health and alcohol-related incidents did not establish a current grave risk. C would initially remain with the father, while the Lithuanian courts and Children’s Services were better placed to investigate current welfare concerns.
4. Delay and C’s experience in England were assessed through Article 13(b), applying the caution in Re L-S (A Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 2177. C had not become well settled in England: his accommodation and care were unsettled, he had missed a year of schooling, had limited English and no direct contact with his mother. Return to Lithuania therefore did not create an intolerable situation.
5. The two alleged strands were considered cumulatively, as required by Re B (Children) [2022] EWCA Civ 1171. The Lithuanian proceedings were to be restored promptly, and the judgment and order sent to the Lithuanian court. There was no order as to costs, apart from assessment of publicly funded costs.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.