The High Court Family Division heard a father's second application for the summary return of a 12-year-old girl to Portugal under the 1980 Hague Convention, with the mother relying on grave risk and the child's objections.
Key facts
- Who: A father seeking the return of his 12-year-old daughter to Portugal, and the mother, who opposes it
- From: 17 September 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: C (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Second application for Summary Return Order), Re, [2026] EWHC 2391 (Fam)
Michael Jones KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Family Division, handed down judgment on 17 September 2026 in [2026] EWHC 2391 (Fam). The hearing took place on 7 and 8 September 2026. The case is anonymised, and the child is referred to as C.
Background
C is 12. She and both her parents are British nationals, and the family had lived in Portugal. The father applied under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 for a summary return order under the 1980 Hague Convention. The judge described the case as unusual because it was a second set of Convention proceedings about the same child.
C came to the attention of child protective services in Portugal. In January 2024 a Portuguese court directed that she be placed in residential care, and in December 2024 the parents were temporarily granted shared custody. C was to spend Christmas 2024 in England with her mother, but the mother kept her in the UK. On 21 May 2025 Williams J ordered C's return to Portugal, subject to protective undertakings from the father. The mother's later application to set that order aside was dismissed, and C was returned.
In 2026 the mother removed C from Portugal again without the father's consent and went to live in the UK. On 7 May 2026 a Portuguese court ordered that C live with her father. The father issued the present application on 26 May 2026. On 8 July 2026 Harrison J ordered contact between the father and C over a seven-day period in the summer holidays. That contact did not take place as ordered: on the first day, 26 August 2026, C attended the contact centre but refused to see her father.
The question
The mother raised the defence under Article 13(b) of the Convention, that return would put C at grave risk of harm or in an otherwise intolerable position. She also relied on C's objections to returning. She had raised both defences in the first proceedings. She appeared without a lawyer; the father was represented by counsel.
The legal framework
The judge reminded himself that the Convention exists to secure the prompt return of a child wrongfully removed from the country where they are habitually resident, so that the courts there can decide long-term welfare questions. A return order is a summary decision pending those courts' decisions. It was not disputed that C was habitually resident in Portugal or that her removal was wrongful. Because the proceedings are summary, C was to be returned unless the mother established a defence.
What this means for parents in Hague Convention cases
- A Hague Convention return order is a summary decision. It sends the child back so that the courts of the home country can decide long-term welfare.
- The court examines whether the child was habitually resident in the other country and whether the removal was wrongful, and then whether any defence is made out.
Sources
- C (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Second application for Summary Return Order), Re, [2026] EWHC 2391 (Fam), High Court (Family Division), 17 September 2026