Background
C, a 12-year-old British child, had lived with her British parents in Portugal, where long-running welfare proceedings addressed parental conflict, allegations of domestic abuse, school attendance and C’s relationship with each parent. After the mother retained C in England following a Christmas 2024 visit, the High Court ordered C’s return to Portugal in May 2025. The mother unsuccessfully sought to set that order aside and eventually returned with C.
Portuguese proceedings continued, but court-directed efforts to rebuild C’s relationship with her father did not progress. The mother removed C from Portugal again in approximately April 2026 without the father’s consent and brought her to England. After the Portuguese court ordered C to live with her father and requested her immediate return, the father commenced a second application under the 1980 Hague Convention. The mother resisted return under Article 13(b), alleging grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation, and relied separately on C’s objections to returning.
The Court’s Holding
Michael Jones KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, rejected both defences and ordered C’s summary return to Portugal. C was habitually resident there, her removal was wrongful, and the Portuguese courts remained seised of her long-term welfare. The judge held that complaints about the fairness of the Portuguese proceedings had to be pursued in Portugal and did not establish an Article 13(b) defence. The mother’s allegations, considered cumulatively and at their reasonable height, did not show that return would expose C to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or otherwise place her in an intolerable situation. Any relevant risk could also be managed through the father’s undertakings and the protection of the Portuguese court.
The court accepted that C objected to returning and was sufficiently mature for her views to be considered. It nevertheless exercised its discretion in favour of return, finding that her increasingly entrenched opposition was not entirely authentically her own and had likely been influenced by living with a mother who repeatedly frustrated contact and court orders. Convention policy and welfare considerations strongly supported return. The mother was directed to provide a passport photograph within 48 hours, and C was to be returned by 23:59 on 8 October 2026, subject to an extension if travel documents were delayed. The father’s collection-order application was adjourned with permission to restore urgently if the mother failed to comply.
Key Takeaways
- Article 13(b) was not established merely because return might distress the child or because the abducting parent challenged the fairness of proceedings in the child’s home state.
- A mature child’s objection opens a discretion but does not determine the result; the court may assess its strength, authenticity, parental influence and consistency with the child’s welfare.
- Repeated wrongful removal and noncompliance with contact and return orders weighed heavily in favour of restoring the Portuguese court’s ability to decide C’s long-term welfare.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Convention’s operation after a second abduction involving the same child. An English court will not use summary-return proceedings to revisit the merits or procedural fairness of welfare decisions made by the courts of the child’s habitual residence.
It also demonstrates that objections expressed by an older child receive genuine consideration but may carry reduced weight where the evidence indicates parental influence, divided loyalties or harm caused by repeated international moves. Protective undertakings and prompt access to the home state’s courts may permit return even when the child is expected to experience significant distress.