HR (Parallel Child Abduction and Asylum Proceedings), Re
[2024] EWHC 1626 (Fam)
W v Z
3 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 469 (Fam)
High Court
A dad took his kids from the US to the UK without their mom's permission. The judge decided the kids lived in the US and should go back to their mom there, because the dad didn't prove it would be dangerous for them to return. The kids will go back to their mom, and hopefully, the parents can work out future arrangements.
Key Facts
- •Mother applied for the return of her two children (X, age 8, and Y, age 3) from the UK to the USA under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (incorporating the 1980 Hague Convention).
- •Father opposed the application, arguing the children were not habitually resident in the USA at the time of their removal on May 5, 2022, and raised the defense of grave risk of harm under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention.
- •Father unilaterally removed the children to the UK during a pre-arranged day visit.
- •Both parents are Orthodox Jewish, and the matter was also subject to arbitration in a US Rabbinical Court (Bais HaVaad).
- •The children had lived in the UK until August 2021, when they moved to the USA with both parents.
- •The family moved several times within the USA during their nine-month stay.
- •The mother remained in the USA until shortly before the hearing, while the father remained in the UK with the children.
- •Expert evidence was provided on the mental health of both parents and the father's immigration status in the USA.
- •The hearing was held on submissions only.
Legal Principles
Habitual residence
Re B (A Child) (Habitual Residence: Inherent Jurisdiction) [2016] AC 606; H v R (Habitual Residence in Pakistan) [2021] EWHC 2024 (Fam)
Article 13(b) defense (grave risk of harm)
Re E [2011] UKSC 27; Guide to Good Practice under the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
Outcomes
Mother's application under the 1980 Hague Convention granted.
The court found that the children's habitual residence was in the USA at the time of their removal. The father failed to establish the Article 13(b) defense of grave risk of harm.