Judgment has been handed down in A Mother v A Father (Fact‑Finding: Abduction) [2025] EWFC 518 (B). The proceedings concerned the welfare of a young child, C, and focused on the mother’s allegation that the father unjustifiably retained C in a second Hague Convention country, contrary to C’s best interests. The father had the mother’s permission to travel with C, he flew on 15 November 2021 and was due to return on 26 November 2021. On 14 November 2024, the father applied for a without notice non-molestation order against the mother. Within his application, he did not mention that he would be travelling to the second Hague Convention Country the following day. On 22 November 2021, a without notice non-molestation order was granted on a no findings basis and, it seems, without a hearing at all.
In December 2021, the mother filed her C66 and a C1A application seeking the return of C to this jurisdiction. That application was heard in the High Court, and on 13 December 2021, at a without notice hearing, the court made a return order requiring C’s return by 16 December 2021. At a hearing on 17 December 2021, the Court made a further order requiring C’s return by 20 December 2021. The father did not follow either of these orders.
On 15 December 2021 M promptly made application to the Central Authority in the second Hague Convention country for return of C under the Hague Convention which was not listed for a hearing until 5 May 2022. The father also made an application to the Court in the second Hague Convention country to revoke the mother’s parental responsibility.
On 28 June 2022, the High Court in England and Wales made a further return order. The Family Court commented that ‘surprising on 18 July 2022 despite the very clear orders from the High Court, the hearing in the Court in the second Hague Convention Country in respect of the mother’s application for the child to be returned to this jurisdiction was postponed until 1 February 2023’. Various assessments were then ordered within the second Hague Convention country. On 9 January 2024, apparently relying on information provided by the father, the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the second Hague Convention country joined his application to revoke the mother’s parental responsibility.
In February 2024, the Court in the second Hague Convention country ordered return of C to England and Wales on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. Following C’s return to England and Wales, both parents made applications to the Family Court in May 2024.
In March 2025, the Supreme Court in the second Hague Convention country subsequently overturned the domestic court’s order for C’s return and referred the matter back to the first instance court. The Father informed the Family Court and the parties of this decision at the Pre-Trial Review in May 2025.
The fact finding hearing was required to determine whether the father’s actions amounted to a deliberate and pre meditated attempt to remove C from the jurisdiction and from the mother’s care—thereby depriving C of a relationship with her, as the mother alleged—or whether the prolonged retention resulted from unforeseen circumstances and the father’s asserted belief that he was protecting C from harm.
The Judge concluded that the father travelled with C intending to keep him abroad and then acted on that plan. The Court considered the father’s application for a non-molestation order to be part of that plan and considered it would not have been made on a without notice basis had the father informed the Court he would be travelling to the second Hague Convention country with C the following day. C was born and habitually resident in England and was only in the second Hague Convention country because he had been abducted there by his father. The Court therefore found no conflict of jurisdictions. The Judge observed that throughout his evidence the father demonstrated a striking inability to prioritise C’s needs above his own. The Court considered the father had shown a willingness to doctor evidence (including a medical letter in relation to the mother) and manipulate professionals and individuals for his own benefit with no regard for what is best for C. The Court found no need for anyone other than the mother to hold C’s passport or for her to be restricted in respect of any application she seeks to make.
Pauline Troy, instructed by Wannops LLP, appeared on behalf of the child through the Children’s Guardian.
Nicola Logan, instructed by Goodlaw Solicitors, appeared on behalf of the Applicant mother.
The full judgment is available here.
