Télécharger le texte complet EN

Nom de l'affaire

G v D [2020] EWHC 1476 (Fam)

Référence INCADAT

HC/E/UKe 1476



Royaume-Uni - Angleterre et Pays de Galles


Première instance

États concernés

État requérant


État requis

Royaume-Uni - Angleterre et Pays de Galles



8 June 2020




Risque grave - art. 13(1)(b)


Retour refusé

Article(s) de la Convention visé(s)


Article(s) de la Convention visé(s) par le dispositif


Autres dispositions


Jurisprudence | Affaires invoquées


Publiée dans



Résumé disponible en EN


Two children, E aged 7 and N aged 3, were born and had always lived in Belgium until the mother moved them to England following a period of approximately 6 weeks in Spain.

The mother, a Slovakian national, alleged that she was fleeing domestic abuse from the children's father, a Belgian national.

There was evidence to suggest that the reason for the family visiting Spain was an attempt by the parents to break away from the drug culture which had become part of their lives in Belgium and to evade the involvement of Belgian social care authorities, who were concerned regarding the care afforded to the children by the parents.

After their arrival in England the children were placed together in local authority foster care where they were making progress, speaking English and having access visits with the mother.

The Belgian authorities stated that no member of the family is currently registered in Belgium and that they would not take any active measures to bring the children back to Belgium as it did not appear to be in their best interests.

The father made an application for the return of the children to Belgium though he would not be able to care for them himself.


The court refused to order the return of the children. The Article 13(1)(b) exception had been made out and there would be a grave risk of harm to the children if they were returned.


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

The assumptions made with respect to the level of risk must be reasoned and reasonable assumptions based on an evaluation of the relevant admissible evidence, albeit an evaluation that is undertaken in a manner consistent with the summary nature of proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention. 

Also, courts should accept that, unless the contrary is proved, the administrative, judicial and social service authorities of the requesting State are equally as adept in protecting children as they are in the requested State.

In this case the children would be at grave risk of harm if they were returned to Belgium. Neither parent would be in a position to care for the children and there were no relatives in Belgium who could care for them.

Further, the Belgian authorities had repeatedly made clear their view that the children should not be returned. There was also no indication of the nature and extent of the protective measures that would be put in place were the children to be returned. This lack of clarity did not stem from lack of cooperation from the Belgian authorities, nor from an absence of such protective measures, but rather from a decision by the Belgian authorities not to provide details of protective measures in circumstances where they consider a return of the children to the jurisdiction of Belgium should not take place.