In the case [2024] EWHC 1149 (Fam), the High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Cusworth, rejected a father's application for the summary return of his daughter, K, to Lithuania under the Hague Convention 1980. Despite the father’s claims, the court found that K, who has lived in England for over two years, objected to returning to Lithuania. The court emphasized her settled life in England and the detrimental impact a return would have on her well-being. The court concluded that the passage of time had diminished the Convention’s objectives, and prioritized K’s welfare by refusing the return order.
Key Legal Issues:
Child's Objection Under Hague Convention: The court examined K’s strong objections to returning to Lithuania, recognizing her age and maturity, and determined that her views should influence the decision.
Grave Risk of Intolerable Situation (Article 13(b)): The mother argued that returning K to Lithuania would expose her to an intolerable situation due to the time elapsed and her established life in England. The court considered this but found that K's objections provided a sufficient basis to deny the return without further considering the Article 13(b) defense.
Discretionary Considerations: The court balanced the objectives of the Hague Convention with the specific circumstances of the case, including the significant delay in proceedings, K's well-established life in England, and the likely negative impact on her welfare if returned.
Court’s Analysis:
The court carefully weighed the principles of the Hague Convention against K's expressed wishes and her current situation. It acknowledged the importance of swift returns under the Convention but concluded that K’s integration into life in England, her objections, and the delay in proceedings justified denying the return order. The court emphasized that K's welfare and her strong objections were paramount in this decision.
Judgment Summary:
Mr. Justice Cusworth ruled that K would not be returned to Lithuania, denying the father's application under the Hague Convention. The court determined that K’s objections to returning were sincere and rooted in her settled life in England. Given the prolonged proceedings and K's integration into her current environment, the court concluded that her welfare would best be served by allowing her to remain in England.
Comments