Mother v Father
[2023] EWHC 3555 (Fam)
Re N (Abduction)
7 December 2022
[2022] EWHC 3146 (Fam)
High Court
A dad took his daughter from her mom in another country. Even though he said she'd be unsafe with her mom, a judge said she had to go back because it wasn't *that* unsafe, and the mom would let the dad see her online. The dad's sneaky way of taking her away made the judge less likely to help him.
Key Facts
- •Mother (from Country A, EU) and Father (from Country B, EU) separated.
- •Father abducted their nearly 3-year-old child, N, from Country A.
- •Abduction occurred during a supervised contact visit arranged by social services.
- •Father brought N to the UK without her passport, evading detection across multiple borders.
- •Mother applied for a return order under the 1980 Hague Convention.
- •Father argued that return would expose N to a grave risk of harm under Article 13b.
- •Father alleged maternal emotional abuse, neglectful childcare, and a risk of prosecution.
- •Mother alleged further risk of abduction by the father and disputed abuse allegations.
- •Country A courts have ongoing custody proceedings.
Legal Principles
Article 13b of the 1980 Hague Convention allows for refusal of a return order if return exposes the child to a grave risk of harm or places them in an intolerable situation.
1980 Hague Convention
The court must assess whether allegations, if true, create a grave risk, and if so, how that risk can be mitigated.
Re IG (Child Abduction: Habitual Residence: Article 13b) [2021] EWCA Civ 1123
The risk of an abducting parent being prosecuted for child abduction is not sufficient, in itself, to satisfy Article 13b.
H v K (Return Order) [2017] EWHC 1141 and Re C (Abduction: Grave Risk of Psychological Harm) [1999] 1 FLR 1145
Outcomes
Return order granted under Article 12 of the 1980 Hague Convention.
The court found that while the situation would be distressing for N, it did not meet the high threshold of a 'grave risk of harm' or 'intolerable situation' under Article 13b. The court considered the Country A court's ongoing involvement and the mother's willingness to provide virtual contact.
No interim orders made regarding N's care.
The court declined to override the Country A court's custody order and considered the risk of further abduction if N remained in the father's care. The court felt the Country A court was better placed to manage the situation.