Case Law Search

The mother is a British national and the father an Israeli national. In 2006 the mother moved to Israel to live with the father. In 2008 they married and in 2012 their first child was born. At the time the proceedings started the couple had two children age 9 and 12, both joint British and Israeli citizens. In 2019 the parents divorced and agreed on shared custody. The mother suffered from alcoholism, anxiety and depression. 

In October 2024 the mother travelled with the children to England for a holiday, with the agreement of the father. Later that month, the mother's solicitors contacted the father, proposing that the children stay in England until the summer of 2025 due to the ongoing conflict in Israel. The father did not agree to this proposal, but the mother and children did not return, and the children were registered into English schools.

In December 2024 father made an application under the 1980 Convention for the return of the children. 

The mother argued that the children objected to return and that the court should invoke the exception of Article 13(b) based on the grave risk of harm on return to Israel due to the ongoing Israel/Hamas war and the impact it would have on her and the children. 

The court held that the exceptions under Article 13 of the 1980 Convention did not apply in this case and ordered the return of the children to Israel. 

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

There was no sufficient immediate threat of serious injury or worse for the children to comprise a sufficiently grave risk of physical harm under Article 13(1)(b) in the event that they were to return to Israel. Either by reason of a prospect that their mother might struggle emotionally to cope with a return, or because they would be placed in sufficient immediate physical danger.

The Court also took into account the fact that the father was clearly very open to negotiation and finding long term solutions, such as the children spending significant time each year in England, and also the fact that the mother could continue to attend therapy in Israel. 

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Though the youngest child raised objections to return, the Court found that he did not yet have a sufficiently mature understanding of the situation to weigh the issues in a balanced way. Therefore the Court’s discretion under Art.13 based on the children’s objections did not arise in this case.

The Court went on to say that, even if the child had been found to have a sufficient level of mature understanding of the situation, this would not have changed the outcome of the case, stressing the importance of maintaining the children’s relationships with their Israeli family, including their half-sister and step-brother. 

Undertakings

The Court discussed the question of protective measures. In this case not relating to any threat from the father but rather from the political and military situation in Israel and over its borders, and the support available in Israel for the mother. 

The Court pointed to the undertakings given by the father and the sufficient mental health support available to the mother in Israel.

The Court also reiterated that the decision to return the children to Israel was not a long-term determination, rather that it was for the Israeli courts to take a decision based on the children’s best interests.