Mother v Father
[2023] EWHC 3555 (Fam)
A Mother v A Father & Anor
18 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2643 (Fam)
High Court
A father kept his son in England instead of returning him to Singapore, as agreed. The mother wanted her son back. The judge decided the son should go back to Singapore, but only if the mother promised not to immediately chase the father for unpaid child support money. The judge considered the son’s views but thought they weren’t enough to stop the return and that the risk to the son wasn’t ‘grave’ enough.
Key Facts
- •12-year-old G, with dual British and Singaporean nationality, was wrongfully retained in England by his father after a summer visit to California.
- •G has epilepsy, developmental delay, dyspraxia, dyslexia, and possibly ADHD.
- •The mother, a Singaporean national with indefinite leave to remain in the UK, sought G's summary return to Singapore under Article 12 of the Hague Convention.
- •The father opposed the return, citing G's objection and a grave risk of harm if returned to Singapore.
- •The father faced financial orders from Singaporean courts for child maintenance, which he was in arrears on, and a warrant for his arrest.
- •The father claimed that returning to Singapore risked imprisonment due to the maintenance arrears.
Legal Principles
Article 12 of the Hague Convention, incorporated by the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, governs the summary return of a wrongfully retained child.
Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985
Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention allows a court to refuse a summary return if the return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm.
Hague Convention
A child's objection to return is a relevant factor under Article 13, but not necessarily determinative. The court must consider the child's maturity, health, and exposure to parental conflict.
In re M and other (Children) (Abduction: Child’s Objections) [2015] EWCA Civ 26; Re Q and V (1980 Hague Convention and Inherent Jurisdiction Summary Return) [2019] EWHC 490
The court must consider whether protective measures can sufficiently ameliorate any risk to the child.
X (Children) (Abduction: Grave Risk: Child’s Objections) [2024] EWHC 1296 (Fam)
Outcomes
The court ordered G's summary return to Singapore, conditional on the mother providing certain undertakings.
The court found that the father's arguments regarding G's objection and grave risk of harm were insufficient to prevent the return. The court weighed G's wishes, his maturity level, the potential impact of the father's imprisonment, and the proposed protective measures. The court also considered the father's financial situation and found no need for additional financial support from the mother beyond the proposed undertakings.