Case Law Search

The parents were both British citizens. They began a relationship in the UK in 2006 and married in 2008. They had three sons together: X, born in 2009; Y, born in 2011; and W born in 2013. After W was born they agreed to relocate permanently to Spain. That move took place in August 2014, and they went on to have a daughter, Z, born in Spain in 2018. 

In September 2019 the parents separated. They carried on living in separate wings of the family home in Spain until November 2020 when the father moved out. The Mother filed for divorce in Spain in September 2019, and later filed for divorce in the UK in October 2020. The relationship between the parents was difficult and acrimonious. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic the father was caught in a lockdown in the UK while on a business trip between March and July 2020. During this time the Mother was in Spain with the children. When the Father returned to Spain in July 2020 he said that he discovered that the family home was abandoned and social services had become involved with the family.

The Father asked Spanish social services to help locate the Mother and children and they were found at the house of a relative. There were many reports prepared by the Spanish social services and there were periods in which the children did not attend school while there was a dispute between the parents as to which one they should attend. 

In December 2022 the Mother took the children to the UK without notice or consent of the Father. 

In January 2023 the Father filed an application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention for the return of the children. 

The Mother argued that a return would expose the children to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation contrary to Article 13(1)(b) and that the children objected to returning to Spain. 

Return ordered. The Mother’s assertions established the potential existence of a grave risk but this could be addressed and sufficiently ameliorated through protective measures. Furthermore, though W objected to returning and had attained an age and maturity at which it was appropriate to take into account his views, other factors outweighed these objections. 

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

The Mother argued that a return would expose the children to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation due to: them witnessing the Father’s abuse of the mother; the Father being neglectful towards them when they were in his solo care; the fact that they would have to attend local state schools which they were ill-prepared to attend; and a lack of available accommodation and financial support in Spain. 

The Father disputed this and argued that that the children were not safe in the Mother’s care due to her neglect and emotional abuse. He went on to argue that, in the event that the court was of the view that a prima facie case of a grave risk was made out, he would offer a range of suitable protective measures.

The Court found that the Mother and Father clearly had a very acrimonious relationship and continued to expose the children to the conflict between them. The Mother’s assertions established the potential existence of a grave risk within the scope of Article 13(1)(b). However, the Court was satisfied that the risks on return could be addressed and sufficiently ameliorated through protective measures.

Furthermore, while it may be difficult for the children to integrate into Spanish schools, it was not a situation which these particular children could not be expected to tolerate. 

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

The mother also asserted that all of the children objected to a return to Spain and that the children were mature enough to express those wishes.

The Court found that W objected to returning at, at 9 years old, had attained an age and maturity at which it was appropriate to take into account his views. However, taking into account all of the relevant factors, the Court found that the policy considerations in favour of a return combined with other welfare factors significantly outweighed W’s objections.