T (Father) v G (Mother)
[2024] EWHC 246 (Fam)
XZR (Abduction: Hague Convention (Lithuania)), Re
17 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 64 (Fam)
High Court
A dad took his child from Lithuania to the UK without the mom's permission. The court said the child should go back to Lithuania because the dad was violent and the mom wasn't causing any serious harm. The dad was arrested because he said he wouldn't send the child back.
Key Facts
- •Mother (M) applied for a summary return order under the 1980 Hague Convention for her child, XZR, wrongfully abducted to the UK by the father (F) from Lithuania in October 2023.
- •F had a history of domestic violence against M, including assaults and threats, documented by Lithuanian court orders and police reports.
- •Lithuanian courts had previously restricted F's contact with XZR due to his violent behavior.
- •F refused to comply with any return order and threatened to take XZR to Kosovo.
- •The court found F in contempt of court for his threats and refusal to comply.
Legal Principles
Hague Convention's purpose is the prompt return of wrongfully removed children.
Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, 1980 Hague Convention, Article 1
Best interests of the child are a primary consideration, even though not explicitly stated in the Hague Convention.
Re E (Children) [2012] 1 AC 144
Article 13(b) defense: Return can be refused if there's a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or an intolerable situation for the child upon return.
1980 Hague Convention, Article 13(b)
Burden of proof lies on the person opposing the child's return (usually the removing parent).
Re E [32]
Court may assume the truth of allegations of domestic abuse if unable to confidently discount the possibility of Article 13(b) risk.
Uhd v Mckay [2019] 2 FLR 1159
Even if Article 13(b) is established, the court retains discretion to order return; however, return is 'inconceivable' if grave risk is found.
Re M (Abduction: Zimbabwe) [2008] 1 FLR 251
Outcomes
Application for summary return order allowed.
Court found no grave risk of harm to XZR upon return to Lithuania, despite F's claims. The Lithuanian court orders restricting F's contact were justified by his violent behavior. F's other arguments regarding education and identity were rejected.
Father found in contempt of court.
Father's refusal to comply with any return order and threats to remove XZR to Kosovo constituted contempt of court.
Summons issued for contempt proceedings.
Court deemed it necessary to initiate proceedings to prevent the father from further frustrating the court order.
Father remanded in custody.
Substantial grounds existed to believe that the father would harass or assault the mother and child if released on bail.