MG (A Child) (Abduction: Norway: Art 13b: Mental Health), Re

In an application under the 1980 Hague Convention, the grave-risk exception in Article 13(b) requires a child-focused, forward-looking assessment. The court must examine the nature of the risk, its likelihood and its consequences, then consider effective protective measures in the State of habitual residence. A predicted deterioration in a parent’s mental health is distinct from a predicted deterioration in functioning sufficient to impair care. Separation from the taking parent does not itself establish grave risk or intolerability. Where the taking parent is willing to return with the child, questions about longer-term living arrangements ordinarily belong to the courts of habitual residence. The court may rely on family support, welfare authorities and undertakings where the resulting risk remains below the high Article 13(b) threshold.

MG, a very young child habitually resident in Norway, was retained in England by her father during a temporary family visit after her mother returned to Norway. The retention was accepted to be wrongful. The mother applied for summary return under the 1980 Hague Convention. The father opposed return under Article 13(b), relying on expert evidence that returning to Norway could worsen his emotionally unstable personality disorder and impair his ability to care for MG. He also relied on concerns about the mother’s ability to care for MG alone. The mother proposed alternative return arrangements, while the father was willing to return with MG. The central issue was whether the risks on return, including pending any orders of the Norwegian courts, amounted to grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation.

Disposition

The father failed to establish the Article 13(b) exception on the balance of probabilities. The court ordered MG’s summary return to Norway, accepted the mother’s protective measures and soft-landing provisions as undertakings, and directed that Norwegian Children’s Welfare Services receive advance notice and relevant translated documents.

1. Applicable inquiry. Article 13(b) has a high threshold and is applied according to its terms, as explained in Re E (Children)(Abduction:Custody Appeal) [2012] 1 AC 144 and Re A (Children)(Abduction: Article 13(b)) [2021] EWCA Civ 939. Following Re B (A Child), Re (Abduction: Article 13(b): Mental Health) [2024] EWCA Civ 1595, the court considered the nature of each risk, its likelihood and the consequences for MG. The staged approach in Re IG (Child Abduction: Habitual Residence; Art 13(b)) [2021] EWCA Civ 1123 required consideration of protective measures if a potential grave risk was identified.
2. Basis of return. The court assessed the situation on the basis that the father would return with MG. Although it had jurisdiction under Article 11 of the 1996 Hague Convention to make urgent orders governing the immediate situation, longer-term living arrangements were primarily matters for the Norwegian courts. Absent unusual circumstances, it was inappropriate to remove MG from the care of a parent willing to return with her.
3. Father’s mental health. The evidence established a likely deterioration in the father’s mental health, but did not quantify deterioration in his overall functioning or provide a timescale. The court concluded that he would probably become unable to care for MG at some point, but the uncertainty made that risk less serious. Consistently with Re A (Children)(Abduction: Article 13(b)) [2021] EWCA Civ 939, separation from the father did not itself establish grave risk or intolerability.
4. Mother’s care. The mother had previously provided adequate care jointly with the father. Although Norwegian Children’s Welfare Services had concerns about her ability to care alone, she would have support from her parents and relevant services. Her crisis following the stillbirth and separation from MG was not treated as determinative of her future presentation.
5. Protective measures. The court considered accommodation and financial assistance, legal aid, healthcare, family and online support, and the continuing involvement of Norwegian authorities. Applying the principles in Re IG (Child Abduction: Habitual Residence; Art 13(b)) [2021] EWCA Civ 1123 and G v D (Art 13(b): Absence of Protective Measures) [2021] 1 FLR 36, it was entitled to treat Norwegian authorities as capable of protecting MG.
6. Conclusion. The risks, individually and cumulatively, were sufficiently remote and capable of being addressed by the available safety net. Their likely consequences did not meet the high threshold of Article 13(b).

This was a first-instance Convention application. The judgment records that the Family Court made an initial prohibited steps order on 16 June 2026 and stayed related proceedings pending determination of the return application. No appellate decision is stated.