Z (Abduction: Re-hearing After Set Aside), Re Neutral Citation Number [2025] EWHC 3564 (Fam)

The parties in this case were the parents of a young child, living in Turkey. The mother removed the child to England without the consent of the father. The father, believing the removal to be wrongful under the Hague Convention, initiated proceedings for the child’s prompt return, alleging that the mother had breached his rights of custody by moving the child across international borders without his agreement, from her country of habitual residence.

The Hague Convention provides a mechanism for the prompt return of children wrongfully removed or retained across international borders. In this instance, a return order was made in the father’s favour at first instance but subsequently set aside resulting in a re-hearing on the defence of Article 13(b) – the child would be placed at grave risk of physical or psychological harm or otherwise placed in an intolerable situation in the event of a return.

• Importance of weighing the evidence of grave risk of harm and evaluating it carefully particularly in relation to protective measures and their effectiveness in ameliorating risk.
• Exercise of the Court’s discretion where a defence is established: the court takes into account not only the objectives of the Hague Convention but also considers significant factors such as the rights and well-being of the child, as well as how much the case has diverged from the Convention’s intent for a prompt return.

The Court, after thoroughly assessing the risk factors and the effectiveness of available protective measures, determined that the mother had successfully proven a defence under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention. While the principle of comity and the Convention’s aim of prompt return were considered, the delay in proceedings meant that a swift return to the child’s habitual residence was no longer feasible. The Court, in the exercise of its discretion, concluded that returning the child would expose her to a grave risk of harm from domestic abuse and separation from her primary carer.

To view the full judgement click here