Background
AL, aged five, had lived throughout her life in Spain with her British parents, who hold permanent residency there. In March 2026, her mother took AL to England for what was agreed to be a short visit to maternal grandparents, but later retained her there. The parties accepted that the retention was wrongful, that it occurred no later than 20 April 2026, and that AL remained habitually resident in Spain.
The father sought AL’s summary return under the 1980 Hague Convention. The mother relied on Article 13b, alleging domestic abuse, coercive and financial control by the father, and a grave risk arising from her own mental health if required to return. A psychiatric expert diagnosed the mother with chronic adjustment disorder and considered that return would more likely than not worsen her mental health, with a possible increase in suicidal thinking or action.
The Court’s Holding
Mr David Rees KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, ordered AL’s return to Spain. The mother had not established that return would expose AL to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm, or otherwise place her in an intolerable situation, within Article 13b.
The judge could not confidently discount the mother’s domestic-abuse allegations for the purposes of the summary Hague process. But the risk identified would arise if the parents continued to cohabit. The father’s protective measures—including separate accommodation funded by a lump sum, maintenance, therapy funding, non-molestation undertakings, and an undertaking not to remove AL from the mother’s care pending a Spanish court order—were sufficient to address that risk.
On mental health, the evidence did not establish the “real” risk of suicide required by Re DM. The expert’s conclusion involved several contingencies, moving from likely deterioration to a possible clinical depression, increased suicidal thinking, and possible action. The mother’s past conduct also showed that she sought help when distressed, and English-speaking medical and therapeutic support, as well as Spanish public healthcare, would be available in Spain.
Key Takeaways
- Article 13b requires a grave risk to the child, not simply evidence that return will be difficult for the taking parent.
- Where domestic-abuse allegations could create a risk, effective interim protective measures may permit return.
- A suicide-based Article 13b defence requires a real risk; conditional expert evidence of possible suicidal action was insufficient here.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the careful scrutiny required where a parent’s mental health and alleged suicide risk are relied on under Article 13b following Re DM. Even where a return is likely to worsen mental health, the court must assess the actual likelihood of suicide, its consequences for the child, and the practical support available on return.
It also confirms that Hague proceedings determine only whether the child should return so that the courts of the habitual-residence state can decide longer-term welfare issues. The merits of the parents’ disputed allegations and AL’s future arrangements remain for the Spanish courts.