Download full text
EN
Case Law Search
New searchCASE
Case Name
ADK v ASI [2022] EWHC 2610
INCADAT reference
HC/E/UKe 1708
Court
UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES
High Court of Justice, Family Division
First Instance
Mr Richard Todd KC (Sitting as Deputy High Court Judge)
States involved
LATVIA
UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES
Decision
17 October 2022
Final
Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
Return ordered
-
CSFK v HWH [2020] HKFLR 318; Re A (Children)(Abduction: Article 13(b)) [2021] EWCA Civ 939; Re B (Abduction: Consent: Oral Evidence) (Article 13(b)) [2022] EWCA Civ 1171; B v K (Child Abduction) [1993] 1 FCR 382; Re GP (A Child) (Abduction): Consideration of Evidence) [2017] EWCA Civ 1677; Re S (A Child) [2019] EWCA Civ 352; Re C [2018] EWCA Civ 2834; Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 853; Good Challenger Naveganta SA v Minerealexportimport SA [2003] EWCA 1668; Re S (Child Abduction - Joinder of sibling - Child’s Objections) [2016] EWHC 1227 (Fam); In re D (A Child) (abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006] UKHL 51; B v B [2014] EWHC 1804; Re J (a Child) [2015] UKSC 70; BK v NK (Suspension of Return Order) [2016] EWHC 2496 (Fam)
-
SUMMARY
Summary available in
EN
Facts
The parents were Latvian nationals. They had twins, also Latvian nationals, in 2020. The twins were age two at the time of the hearing.
The Mother had lived in the UK between 2008 and 2017. She had a son from a previous relationship (N) who had been brought up in England. The Mother returned to Latvia in 2017 but says she planned this to be for only a couple of years so that her son could experience something of his Latvian heritage.
The parents were not married but lived together in Latvia. The Mother moved out when the twins were two months old. A restraining order was made in favour of the Mother.
In November 2021 the Mother took the children from Latvia without the Father’s knowledge or consent. They returned to Latvia in January 2022 but returned to England around June 2022.
The Father filed an application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention for the return of the children to Latvia.
The Mother argued that to order a return would place the children at grave risk of harm within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) of the Convention. Her non-subject son, N, was age 12 at the time of the hearing. He opposed the return to Latvia and did not want to be separated from his mother and sisters.
Ruling
Return ordered. Though there was a grave risk to the mother and, indirectly the children, within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b), it was possible to put in place sufficient safeguards to mitigate that risk.
Grounds
Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
The Mother described her relationship with the father as being one of enduring violence and abuse. She gave serious allegations and N also recounted the emotional abuse he suffered. The Mother argued that a return to Latvia would engage Article 13(1)(b) as it would present a grave risk to the Mother and so, indirectly, to the twins.
The allegations, albeit denied by the Father, constituted a grave risk were the mother and/or children to return to Latvia. N’s possible separation, though not enough in itself to make out the Article 13(1)(b) exception, added to the possibility of harm.
However, it was possible to put in place sufficient safeguards to protect the mother.
The Judge highlighted that the proceedings were concerned with the relatively short period that it would take for the Latvian court to decide whether the Mother should have permission to remove permanently the twins.