Z (A Child) (Retention from Hong Kong: Child’s Objections), Re

Under 1980 Hague Convention art 13, a child’s objection to return gives the court a discretion, not an automatic exemption. Where the child has sufficient age and maturity, the court must weigh the Convention’s policy favouring return against the nature, strength, authenticity and rationality of the objections and all relevant welfare consequences.

The discretion may properly be exercised against return where the objections arise from credible experiences of neglect or psychological harm, are aligned with the child’s welfare, and proposed protective measures would not prevent further harm before intervention. A short period of sobriety, without evidence of a low risk of relapse, may be insufficient. The court may decline to determine an alternative 1980 Hague Convention art 13(b) defence where the application is dismissed under art 13.

The applicant mother sought the return of her eleven-year-old son, Z, to Hong Kong under the 1980 Hague Convention. Z had lived in Hong Kong with his mother from infancy. In June 2025, following serious concerns about the mother’s alcohol misuse and ability to care safely for him, the maternal grandmother brought Z to England for an agreed summer visit but did not return him.

The retention was wrongful under art 3. Z lived in England with his grandmother and aunt, attended school there, and objected clearly to returning to Hong Kong or living with his mother while she remained unable to care safely for him. The central issue was whether his objections, having regard to his age and maturity, justified refusing return under art 13. The court also considered, but did not determine, an alternative grave-risk defence under art 13(b).

1. Disposition. The application for Z’s return to Hong Kong was dismissed. His retention was wrongful under art 3, and art 12 would ordinarily require his prompt return.
2. Child’s objections. Z was eleven and had attained sufficient maturity for his views to be taken into account. His objections were longstanding, clear, authentic, rational and based on frightening experiences of his mother’s alcohol misuse. They were not the product of improper influence. His objection to returning to Hong Kong was inseparable from the prospect of living with his mother there.
3. Balancing exercise. The Convention policy favouring return and Z’s deep connections with Hong Kong carried substantial weight. That weight was tempered by the grandmother’s genuine response to Z’s request for help and her responsible involvement of social services. Those factors were outweighed by the strength of Z’s objections, the psychological harm and neglect he had experienced, and the risk of renewed harm if the mother relapsed.
4. Protective measures. The court accepted that Hong Kong children’s services could intervene if necessary, but concluded that intervention would come too late to prevent further harm. Z’s hyper-vigilance and anxiety were closely connected with prolonged exposure to alcohol abuse. A proposed deferred return conditioned on three months’ sobriety, AA attendance, counselling, accommodation and schooling was unrealistic. The mother had been unable to maintain sobriety during the proceedings, and a low risk of relapse required a substantially longer period.
5. The court accepted that the threshold stage of the art 13(b) analysis described in Re E [2011] UKSC 27 was met, but expressly declined to determine the art 13(b) defence because the application was already dismissed under art 13. The court encouraged continued mediation and emphasised that the mother bore responsibility for demonstrating sustained change.