Recherche de décisions

The father was an Australian citizen and the mother a dual UK-US citizen. The parents met in the US in 2015. Shortly after the mother moved to Australia to be with the father. The father had a 15 year old daughter from a previous relationship. The parents married in Australia in 2019 and had a child in October 2020. The child was a dual Australian-US citizen. 

The parents relationship was conflictual with drug use and mental health problems. They separated on 18 September 2025. Over the next week or so the parents discussed possible custody plans. The mother told the father of her plans to move back to the USA to be closer to her family for support. The father did not agree though he did raise the possibility of the mother and child moving to the US in exchange for the mother signing over the marital home. 

On 29 September 2025 the mother messaged the father to tell him she had left for the USA with the child. 

The father filed an application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention for the return of the child on 15 January 2026. 

The mother argued that the father had consented to the removal and that to return the child to Australia would place him at grave risk of harm within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b).

Return ordered. The mother failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the father consented to the removal or that there was a grave risk of harm. 

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

The Court held that the mother’s surreptitious conduct in removing the child without telling the father was inconsistent with the actions of someone who believed the removal was consented to.  The parents were negotiating a formal written agreement and the mother had assured the father she would not take the child out of the country.  Furthermore, upon hearing the news, the father drove to the airport and contacted the Australian police and the mother’s solicitor in an attempt to stop the removal. 

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

The mother argued that returning the child to Australia would place him at grave risk of harm due to the father’s volatile and controlling conduct. The Court did not agree and held that there was no pattern of domestic violence and that the incidents cited by the mother, while unfortunate, did not amount to the physical abuse of either the mother or the child. Equally, the father’s mental health problems did not amount to convincing evidence of a grave risk of harm.