C (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Second application for Summary Return Order), Re

Summary return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention are directed to the prompt return of a wrongfully removed child so that the courts of the state of habitual residence can determine long-term welfare issues. The Article 13(b) exception requires a child-focused, cumulative and concrete assessment of the alleged risk, followed, where necessary, by careful scrutiny of protective measures and undertakings. Complaints about procedural fairness in the foreign welfare proceedings ordinarily belong in that jurisdiction and do not themselves establish an intolerable situation. A child’s objection triggers a broad discretion, not an automatic bar. The court must consider the objection’s strength and authenticity, parental influence, welfare and Convention policy. Distress caused by return is insufficient where the requesting court has made an informed welfare determination and effective protection can be arranged.

The father sought a second summary return order after the mother retained and later removed their 12-year-old daughter from Portugal to England. A previous English Convention order had required return, and the Portuguese welfare proceedings remained ongoing, including an order transferring the child’s residence to the father. The mother, appearing in person, relied on Article 13(b), alleging domestic abuse, risks arising from the Portuguese proceedings and practical difficulties on return. She also relied on the child’s objections to Portugal and contact with her father. The central issues were whether either defence was established and, if so, whether return should nevertheless be ordered.

Disposition. The father’s application for a summary return order was granted. The child was to be returned to Portugal by 23.59 on 8 October 2026. The application for a collection order was adjourned with permission to restore urgently.

1. Summary return framework. The purpose of the 1980 Hague Convention is the prompt return of a child wrongfully removed from the state of habitual residence, so that the courts of that state can determine long-term welfare issues. The court applied the approach described in B v B [2014] EWHC 1804 and Re D (A Child)(Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006] UKHL 51. Habitual residence and wrongful removal were undisputed, so return was the default unless a Convention defence was established.
2. Article 13(b). The court applied the high-threshold, child-focused and staged approach derived from Re E (Children)(Custody Appeal) [2011] UKSC 27, Re S (A Child)(Abduction, Rights of Custody) [2012] UKSC 10, Re IG (A Child) (Child Abduction, Habitual Resident, Article 13(b)) [2021] EWCA Civ 1123 and A (Children) (Abduction: Article 13(b)) [2021] EWCA Civ 939. The allegations were assessed cumulatively and in the concrete circumstances of return. The effectiveness of protective measures was considered in accordance with Re B (Children) [2022] 3 WLR 1315 and M v F (Art 13 Thresholds Not Met) [2025] EWHC 2629 (Fam).
3. The mother’s complaints about procedural fairness in Portugal were matters for the Portuguese courts and did not establish that return would place the child in an intolerable situation. The allegations against the father, taken at their height, did not establish grave risk. The Portuguese court had considered substantial welfare evidence and had directed a transfer of residence to the father. The father’s undertakings concerning protection, travel, accommodation and non-separation were sufficient to manage the identified risks. The Article 13(b) defence was therefore rejected.
4. Child’s objections. The court found that the child objected to return and was of sufficient age and maturity for her views to be considered. Applying the two-stage approach associated with Re M (Republic of Ireland) (Child’s Objections) (Joinder of Children as Parties to Appeal) [2015] EWCA Civ 26 and Re M & Anor (Children) [2007] UKHL 55, the court treated the objection as engaging a broad discretion rather than determining the outcome. The child’s increasingly negative views had been influenced by the mother, were strongest against contact with the father, and were inconsistent with the Portuguese welfare decision. Welfare and Convention considerations favoured return. The objections defence was rejected.
5. The mother was directed to provide a passport photograph within 48 hours under a penal notice. The father agreed to fund travel and accommodation and not to make a criminal complaint against the mother. The court encouraged the mother to accompany the child, but held that return without her would not itself create an intolerable situation.

This was a first-instance application. The judgment records earlier Convention proceedings before Williams J, including a summary return order made on 21 May 2025, enforcement proceedings and dismissal of the mother’s set-aside application on 18 September 2025. No appeal of the present decision is stated.