EF and GH (Children) (1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention), Re
| Judge | Nicholas Stonor KC |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWHC 3576 (Fam) |
| Date | 17 December 2024 |
| Year | 2024 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Counsel | Harry Langford,Jonathan Evans |
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWHC 3576 (Fam)
Case No: FD24P00321
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
17 December 2024
Before :
Nicholas Stonor KC
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
The Father
Applicant
- and -
The Mother
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re EF and GH (Children) (1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Harry Langford (instructed by Freemans Solicitors) Applicant Father
Jonathan Evans (instructed by Brethertons LLP) Respondent Mother
Hearing dates: 11-13 December 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 17 December 2024 by circulation
to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the
judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment)
in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their
family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must
ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of
court.
MR STONOR KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT
JUDGE (IN PRIVATE)
Approved Judgment
Double-click to enter the short title
Mr Stonor KC:
1. Introduction
1. By an application dated 25 July 2024, the father (F) seeks a return order under the
Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 incorporating the 1980 Hague Convention on
the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (‘the 1980 Hague Convention’) in
relation to his daughters, EF (who is aged 5) and GH (who is aged 3). The application
is opposed by the children’s mother (M).
2. F and M are married. F is a USA national. M is a British national who has acquired
US citizenship. The children have dual nationality.
3. The family lived in Iowa, USA until 09 December 2023 when they travelled to M’s
hometown in the South of England. M and the children have remained living there
ever since. F returned to the USA in January. For reasons which are disputed, return
flights to the USA for M and the children had been booked for 12 April 2024. On 10
April 2024, during an exchange of messages, M made it clear to F that she and the
children would not be returning to the USA on 12 April 2024. Later that day (10 April
2024), F commenced divorce proceedings in Iowa.
4. On 07 May 2024, F applied to the District Court in Iowa for orders including the
return of the children. On 31 May 2024, M applied for a child arrangements order and
an inherent jurisdiction declaration as to habitual residence. Ultimately, these other
applications relating to the children, in Iowa and in England, have been stayed
pending determination of F’s application under the 1980 Hague Convention.
5. During closing submissions, counsel agreed that the issues in the case could be
formulated as set out in the following paragraphs.
6. F’s application is put on the following bases:
(1) He had agreed to a temporary and not a permanent relocation, and he fully
expected the children to be returned to the USA on 12 April 2024.
(2) Accordingly, for the purposes of Article 3 of the 1980 Convention:
a. On 09 December 2023, M wrongfully removed the children from the USA
because:
i. Permanent relocation was not in the parties’ joint contemplation;
and/or,
ii. By dishonestly allowing F to believe that the relocation was only
temporary when she herself intended it to be permanent, she
obtained F’s consent by deception and that consent is therefore
vitiated; or
b. By 04 January 2024 (when M enrolled the children in nursery), or by 24
January 2024 (when M registered the children with a GP in England), or
by 01 March 2024 (when M applied for a job in England), or by around 04
April 2024 (by which date M had secured Universal Credit and had
obtained a self-assessment record and unique tax-payer reference from
HMRC), M wrongfully retained the children in the UK because, by her
actions, she had unilaterally repudiated the parties’ agreement to a
temporary relocation and had thereby repudiated F’s custody rights; or
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
2 cases
-
L v D
...this case are far removed from those which underpinned the decision in Re EF and GH (Children) (1980 Hague Child Abductions Convention) [2024] EWHC 3576 which had arisen in circumstances of a discussion of planned 51. In considering the mother’s case on Habitual Residence, I have been caref......
-
L v D
...submits that the circumstance of this case are far removed from those which underpinned the decision in Re EF and GH (Children) (1980 Hague Child Abductions Convention) [2024] EWHC 3576 which had arisen in circumstances of a discussion of planned 51. In considering the mother’s case on Habi......