F v M

Under Article 13(2) of the 1980 Hague Convention, the court must first decide whether a child objects to return and has sufficient age and maturity for the objection to be taken into account. If that gateway is crossed, the court has a broad discretion. It must assess the objection’s nature, strength and authenticity, including possible influence by the abducting parent, alongside welfare considerations and the Convention’s purposes. A summary jurisdiction does not prevent evaluative assessment of contested evidence. Under Article 13(b), the objecting party must establish a grave risk of physical or psychological harm, or an intolerable situation, assessed prospectively and with protective measures in view. The court may give decisive weight to authentic objections where delay, disruption and the child’s welfare materially weaken the Convention’s return considerations.

The father sought the summary return to Türkiye of his two daughters, aged eight and six, after the mother removed them to England without his consent. The children were habitually resident in Türkiye, the removal was wrongful, and the father held rights of custody. The mother relied on Article 13(2), asserting that the children objected to return, and on Article 13(b), alleging domestic abuse and grave risks to herself and the children.

The court considered the children’s expressed views, the Cafcass evidence, the parties’ competing allegations, the effect of the twelve-month delay, and the circumstances likely to confront the children on return.

1. Article 13(2) gateway. The court held that both children had expressed resistance to returning to Türkiye which went beyond a mere preference or view. Their ages and maturity were sufficient for their objections to be taken into account. The gateway was therefore crossed.
2. Evaluation and weight. The court was required to assess the evidence, including whether the objections were authentic, despite the summary nature of the jurisdiction. The children’s views were influenced by the mother and lacked detailed reasoning, but were nevertheless genuinely and strongly held. Their views had to be weighed with their welfare needs and the general Convention considerations. The children’s stable home, education, relationship with each other, therapeutic needs and the trauma associated with their removal and earlier separation from their mother materially strengthened the objections. The passage of approximately twelve months weakened the general return considerations. Their objections were ultimately given determinative weight.
3. Article 13(b). The court applied the settled principles identified in Re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) [2011] UKSC 27. The burden rested on the mother. The alleged incidents of smacking, even if established, did not generate the grave risk or intolerable situation required by Article 13(b). The wider allegations of criminality, threats, coercive control and danger were insufficiently particularised, escalated over time, inconsistent with the wider evidence and unsupported. The defence failed.
4. Disposition. The Article 13(b) defence was rejected. The court declined to order summary return because the children’s authentic objections, considered in their welfare context, required that they remain in the United Kingdom.

First-instance application in the High Court (Family Division). The judgment does not state that the decision was appealed.