HG (A Child)(Abduction: Consent, Acquiescence, Art 13b), Re

For Convention purposes, consent to a child’s travel abroad may be limited and temporary even where no return date is fixed. The court must assess the parties’ agreement in its factual context. A later unilateral decision not to return may therefore constitute wrongful retention.

Acquiescence requires proof of the left-behind parent’s actual state of mind. Negotiations for a possible future family arrangement do not ordinarily amount to acquiescence where they remain conditional and the parent continues to seek return. An Article 13(b) defence requires a grave risk to the child, assessed cumulatively where several grounds are relied upon. Reasonable protective or soft-landing measures may be considered in assessing that risk.

The father applied under the 1980 Hague Convention, incorporated by the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, for the return of his young son from England and Wales to Texas. The child had travelled from the United States to the United Kingdom with the mother in March 2025. The parties disagreed whether the father had agreed to a temporary visit or an open-ended move.

The mother argued that there had been no wrongful retention, that the child had become habitually resident in England, and that the father had consented to or acquiesced in the child remaining there. She also relied on Article 13(b), asserting risks arising from her mental health, possible refusal of her re-entry to the United States, and the father’s alleged abuse and controlling conduct.

1. Wrongful retention. The father had agreed only to a temporary trip to the United Kingdom, although no return date had been fixed. The surrounding circumstances, including the family’s recent move to Texas, the mother leaving most possessions there, and the travel documentation, did not support an open-ended or potentially permanent move. The mother’s statement on 6 April 2025 that she and the child would not return repudiated that agreement and constituted wrongful retention under Article 3. The court did not need to decide whether the issue fell under wrongful retention or Article 13(a) consent.
2. Habitual residence. On 6 April 2025 the child remained habitually resident in Texas. He had spent only 21 days in England, had not become integrated into life there, and retained his home, father and family possessions in the United States.
3. Acquiescence. The father had not acquiesced under Article 13(a). His discussions about moving to the United Kingdom were conditional on arrangements concerning accommodation and shared finances. He remained interested in the mother and child returning to the United States and did not learn of his Convention rights until November 2025. The negotiations were a paradigm example of sensible attempts to arrange the family’s future and did not clearly and unequivocally show that he would not seek summary return.
4. Article 13(b). The mother failed to establish a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or an intolerable situation. The psychiatric evidence made significant deterioration affecting parenting highly unlikely. Immigration evidence made refusal of the mother’s re-entry highly unlikely, and any possible separation would not itself establish grave risk. The admitted ear-squeezing incident and police call-outs fell well short of the required threshold. The grounds also failed cumulatively.
5. The father’s proposed financial, accommodation, transport, insurance and non-harassment arrangements provided an adequate soft landing. The child was ordered to return to Texas forthwith, subject to determination of the precise order terms.