High Court Rules Against Summary Return in Complex International Child Abduction Case Involving Asylum Claims and Domestic Abuse Allegations

Citation: [2024] EWHC 555 (Fam)
Judgment on


In the case of Re Y and K (Children: Summary Return Application: Asylum) [2024] EWHC 555 (Fam), the High Court of Justice in the Family Division was tasked with determining whether two children should be returned to Germany under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The matter involved complex issues surrounding international child abduction, asylum claims, and domestic abuse allegations, operating within the ambit of both the 1980 Hague Convention and the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

Key Facts

The case centered on an Iranian-born mother and two children who entered the UK clandestinely by boat. The father, remaining in Germany, sought a summary return of the children under the 1980 Hague Convention and subsequently under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. However, the mother opposed the return, asserting the father lacked ‘rights of custody’ in Germany and citing domestic abuse.

During the proceedings, it was revealed that the parents had falsely claimed to be married in Iran; the father’s persistent assertion to the contrary was later withdrawn, affecting his application under the 1980 Hague Convention, which he subsequently abandoned. The mother had also applied for asylum in the UK, but her claim was deemed inadmissible as she was considered an EU national, against which she had initiated judicial review proceedings.

The court’s analysis was grounded in the paramountcy of the children’s welfare as per section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. Baroness Hale’s guidance in Re J (A Child) (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) [2005] UKHL 40 was pivotal, including her emphasis on the importance of the child’s best interests over the principles of the Hague Convention in non-Convention cases. Furthermore, Lord Wilson’s eight linked questions from Re NY (A Child) [2019] UKSC 49 provided a structured approach to address the welfare considerations of the children, including whether the summary return would be in their best interests.

The case also referenced the newly established guidance post-G v G [2021] UKSC 9, regarding the interplay between family proceedings and concurrent asylum claims. These guidelines were essential in navigating the procedures when a case involves an asylum-seeking party and a summary return application within family law.


Mr. Justice Cobb ruled against the summary return of the children to Germany. In reaching this decision, the judge placed significant weight on the welfare of the children, considering the mother’s allegations of domestic abuse by the father and the potential impact on her as the children’s primary carer. The judge also took into account the current level of stability and security the children experienced in the UK, the potential disruption posed by returning to Germany, and the unclear effectiveness of the proposed protective measures.

The case highlighted the tension between the desire for a summary return in international child abduction cases and the individual welfare considerations associated with asylum claims and allegations of domestic abuse. It underscored the need for robust and effective protective measures to ensure the children’s welfare and the potential difficulties in relying on them when one parent might not obey the measures.


Re Y and K is an instructive case that reaffirms the paramountcy of child welfare in family law. It reflects the complexity of cases involving cross-border elements, where domestic abuse allegations complicate the legal landscape. The decision demonstrates the court’s careful balancing of the inherent jurisdiction’s broad discretion with the need to ensure the welfare and safety of children take precedence over procedural mechanisms for international child abduction. In doing so, it provides guidance for legal professionals on the relevant considerations and legal principles in similar cases.

Related Summaries