RA v LA (Art 13(b))

In a summary application under the 1980 Hague Convention, the court should first consider whether the evidence enables it confidently to discount an Article 13(b) risk. If it cannot, the allegations are taken at their highest and the court assesses whether they could establish a grave risk. If so, it must examine whether concrete protective measures can meet that assumed risk.

Coercive and controlling behaviour involving financial pressure, control of movement and access to necessities may create a grave risk of psychological harm to a child who experiences the resulting subordination of a parent. A return order may be made where robust measures, including pre-paid independent funds and effective undertakings, sufficiently manage the risk. A return to a third state is permissible, but must be used carefully and consistently with the Convention’s objectives.

The father applied under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1984 for the summary return of the parties’ one-year-old child under the 1980 Hague Convention. The child had been wrongfully removed from Denmark to England. The mother accepted habitual residence in Denmark, the father’s custody rights and the wrongful nature of the removal, but relied on Article 13(b).

The mother alleged coercive and controlling behaviour, financial control, restrictions on movement, deprivation of food and necessities, and homelessness. The father denied the allegations and proposed protective measures supporting return to Sweden or Denmark. The issues were whether Article 13(b) was established, whether return should nevertheless be ordered, and whether the appropriate destination was Sweden or Denmark.

1. Preliminary issue. The mother’s application to give oral evidence was refused. Hague Convention proceedings are summary. Oral evidence will rarely be necessary in an Article 13(b) case because disputed allegations are ordinarily taken at their highest, while protective measures are assessed from the information placed before the court.
2. Article 13(b) framework. The court applied a three-stage process: whether the possibility of an Article 13(b) risk can confidently be discounted; if not, whether the allegations, taken at their highest, establish a grave risk; and, if so, whether available protective measures can meet the assumed level of risk. The assessment must remain focused on the child’s future situation on return.
3. The allegations of emotional coldness, inadequate parenting support and disruption caused by return did not, even taken at their highest, establish a grave risk. However, allegations of financial coercion and control, monitoring expenditure, restricting movement, withholding food, controlling access to essential items and leaving the mother and child homeless did establish a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or an intolerable situation.
4. The alleged conduct fell within the concept of coercive and controlling behaviour. Such behaviour may affect children even where they are very young, and may create future risks notwithstanding that particular incidents occurred in the past.
5. Risk management and destination. Denmark was the appropriate destination. The child was habitually resident there, both parents could litigate there, and return to Sweden risked procuring an effective relocation without a concomitant welfare enquiry.
6. The risk could be managed by requiring payment, before implementation of the order, of a £12,000 advance on the parties’ divorce settlement. The mother had to be free to use the money for housing and maintenance at her sole election. Confidence in the Danish authorities and the father’s undertakings provided additional protection.
7. The mother therefore failed to establish a basis for refusing return under Article 13(b). A return order was made under Article 12 requiring the child’s return to Denmark forthwith, subject to payment of the £12,000 advance.

This was a first-instance application in the High Court (Family Division). The proceedings were issued on 26 February 2026 after initial directions before McKendrick J on 23 March 2026.