Recherche de décisions

The father was a Dutch national and the mother a British national. They met in Amsterdam in 2015 and married in 2016. They had a child, born in August 2017. They divorced in June 2022 and a Dutch Court made an order that the child’s main residence was with the mother and that he should live with the father over the weekends. 

In May 2022 the mother left the child in his father’s full time care and went to live in the UK. On 6 August 2022 the mother took the child from the Netherlands to the maternal grandparents’ home in England. 

The father said this was meant to be for a three week holiday and the mother claimed it was for the child to live there permanently.

In June 2024 the father filed an application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention for the return of the child to The Netherlands. 

The mother argued that the father consented or acquiesced to the removal and that to return the child would be to place him in an intolerable situation within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b).

Return ordered. The Court dismissed the exceptions based upon consent, acquiescence and Article 13(1)(b). In the circumstances it was for the Dutch courts to determine the child’s long term welfare.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

The mother argued that the father consented to the removal based on a conversation between the parties where the father agreed to the child residing in England because he could not cope. 

The Court found that, whilst the father was content for the child to come to England for a holiday, there was no demonstrated evidence of clear and unequivocal consent for the child to relocate there permanently.  

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

The mother further argued that the father acquiesced as he took limited steps to return the child before August 2023. 

Though the Court accepted that the father took minimal outward steps to communicate to the respondent that the child should be returned, on balance the messages and emails he sent were clear that he expected the child to return to The Netherlands and did not agree or acquiesce to his relocation. 

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

The mother also argued that it would be intolerable for the child if he had to return to The Netherlands with his mother, given that she would be homeless, unemployed and subject to the father’s controlling and coercive behaviour.

Taking the mother’s case at its highest, the Court found that a return may impact on the child and place him in an intolerable situation. However, the Court was entirely satisfied the Dutch courts could fairly and effectively resolve any issues in respect of the child and the mother. Considering the appropriate protective measures, the Article 13(1)(b) exception was not made out.