N (A Child) (Ukraine: Art. 13 (b)), Re
[2024] EWHC 871 (Fam)
N (A Child) (Ukraine: Art. 13 (b)) (No. 2), Re
24 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1282 (Fam)
High Court
A father wanted his son back in Ukraine. The mother said it was too dangerous because of the war. The judge found a safer place in Ukraine for the boy to live and made sure the father promised to keep him safe. The boy will go back to Ukraine to live with his father.
Key Facts
- •Father applied for the summary return of his son, N, to Ukraine under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 and the Hague Convention.
- •Mother opposed the return, citing Article 13(b) defence (grave risk of harm or intolerability).
- •The initial hearing resulted in a judgment on April 17, 2024 ([2024] EWHC 871 (Fam)).
- •The father provided evidence of alternative safe locations in Ukraine, away from conflict zones.
- •The mother argued that moving N to these new locations would be damaging and isolating for him.
- •The court considered updated evidence, including witness statements and news reports.
- •The court considered previous case law, including Keehan J in Re A (Article 13b Ukraine) [2023] EWHC 3524 (Fam).
Legal Principles
Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention allows a court to refuse a return order if the return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (incorporating the 1980 Hague Convention)
The court must consider the child's best interests in determining whether a return order should be made.
Hague Convention
Undertakings given by a party can be considered as protective measures to mitigate risks to a child.
Re A (Article 13b Ukraine) [2023] EWHC 3524 (Fam)
The court must consider the safety and well-being of the child in the context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
Various judgments cited in the case
Outcomes
The court rejected the mother's Article 13(b) defence.
The court found that the alternative locations proposed by the father in Western Ukraine were safe enough to prevent grave risk of harm or intolerability to the child, and that the potential psychological harm of remaining in England outweighed that of the move.
A return order was made for N to return to Ukraine.
The court deemed it in N's best interests to return to Ukraine, considering his wishes, his relationship with his father, and the availability of suitable alternative locations.
The father's undertakings were accepted and will be presented to the Ukrainian court.
These undertakings provide protective measures for N pending a full welfare analysis by the Ukrainian court.