In A Mother v A Father (Fact Finding: Abduction) [2025] EWFC 518 (B), the Court made a number of findings against the Father including that he took the child to the second Hague Convention country with a plan to keep him there which he then acted out and that, prior to going, he set about deliberately manipulating evidence which he could then use to try to justify his action. Following the findings made, in Re C (A Child) (Relocation: Domestic Abuse: Section 91(14) Orders) [2026] EWHC 1591 (Fam), the High Court considered appropriate final orders.
Pauline Troy, instructed by Lisa Ursell of Wannops LLP, appeared on behalf of the child through the Children’s Guardian.
Nicola Logan, instructed by Katherine McGuire of Goodlaw Solicitors, appeared on behalf of the Applicant mother.
A Final Hearing had initially been listed in the Family Court on 5th November 2025 before HHJ Talbott. At 7.38am on 5th November 2025, the Father sent a copy of an Order made by the Juvenile Court in the Second Hague Convention Country in October 2025.
The Juvenile Court in the Second Hague Convention Country heard the case again as it had been remitted to them by the Supreme Court in that Country. Henke J found the Mother did not know about the hearing in October until after it had taken place. It did not appear from the Order of the Juvenile Court in the Second Hague Convention Country that it was aware of the proceedings in England and Wales. The Juvenile Court in the Second Hague Convention Country went on to make various directions for further assessment of the child.
The Final Hearing on 5th November 2025 was adjourned, and the matter was transferred to the High Court. A Final Hearing was later listed to take place on 16th February 2026.
On 30th January 2026, the Father made an application to adjourn the Final Hearing, claiming he had not been properly served with documentation. The High Court ordered on the papers that the Final Hearing should remain listed on 16th February and provided for alternative service by WhatsApp or registered post.
Various attempts were made to serve the Father by email, WhatsApp and courier without success. Henke J found that the Father had deliberately evaded service in an attempt to disrupt the Final Hearing. Henke J was satisfied that the Father knew of all the evidence placed before the High Court and had notice of the Final Hearing but chose not to attend.
The High Court reminded itself that jurisdiction is a matter to be kept under review and found that C is habitually resident in England.
The High Court made a number of additional findings against the Father. These include that the Father poses a significant and continued risk to C and there is a real and ever-present risk that the Father, given opportunity, will abduct C and keep him in the Second Hangue Convention Country and that, in his care, the Father will unlikely facilitate C’s relationship with the Mother. The High Court also found that the Father misled the Supreme Court and Juvenile Court in the Second Hague Convention Country by, amongst other things, failing to disclose the judgment of HHJ Talbott.
The High Court made various Final Orders which include:
- The Father’s application for C to live with him in the Second Hague Convention country is dismissed;
- C to live with the Mother;
- Video contact between C and the Father should be professionally supervised with C attending from a contact centre;
- The Mother shall provide the Father with updates with respect to C three times a year;
- No direct contact between C and the Father;
- Various prohibited steps orders for C’s protection;
- Permission for M to withhold various details with respect to C from the Father;
- Father’s parental responsibility is removed (the Court held that restricting rather than removing the Father’s parental responsibility was likely to be insufficient to protect C);
- Section 91(14) Order for 5 years.
The full judgment is available here.
