Hague return application stayed after Polish court’s interim order that child live in England

The High Court Family Division stayed a Hague Convention 1980 return application because an interim Polish residence decision had the child living in England, a ruling relevant to parents in cross-border child disputes.

In FC v MC [2026] EWHC 1516 (Fam), handed down on 18 June 2026 after a hearing on 3 June 2026, Mr Justice Poole considered how the court should deal with a Hague Convention 1980 application for a child's summary return when a court in the requesting state has made an order that the child live with the mother in England. The case is anonymised and the child is referred to as C.

Background

The father, FC, applied for C's return to Poland. He said the mother, MC, had wrongfully removed C in February 2026. The Polish court had made an interim residence decision that C should live with MC in England. Both parents had made applications in Poland and taken part in those proceedings, and neither had argued that the Polish court lacked jurisdiction. The mother raised defences, including grave risk of harm under Article 13(b). There was a prospect of an imminent appeal in Poland against the interim order.

The question

Must an English court order a child's return "forthwith" under the Convention when an order in the requesting state says the child should live in the requested state?

The decision

The judge decided to stay the father's application, rather than dismiss it or decide it now. He rejected a conditional return order, and he rejected deciding only some issues, such as habitual residence or wrongful removal.

The reasoning

The judge noted that the Convention's wording is mandatory and that a later order cannot make a wrongful removal retrospectively lawful. Even so, he concluded that a return order would have no utility: the mother could travel back to England without committing a wrongful removal. Under Article 23(1) of the Hague Convention 1996, the Polish interim decision must be recognised, and a return order would cut across it. Comity also pointed towards respecting it.

A conditional order was inappropriate because the Polish decision might be months away and circumstances relevant to the Article 13(b) defence could change. Deciding habitual residence or wrongful removal alone risked being academic, and those issues were not straightforward because C had lived for substantial periods in both England and Poland in the twelve months before the application.

The judge said the 1980 Convention is not a tool for enforcing foreign welfare orders. A final Polish order that C live in Poland would be recognised and enforceable in England under the 1996 Convention, subject to certain exceptions. Dismissal was one option, but the judge was conscious that the father might successfully appeal the interim decision, or that circumstances might change soon. A stay for anything but a finite and relatively short period would cut across the objects of the Convention.

Sources

• FC v MC (Hague Convention 1980: Effect of Order in Requesting State) [2026] EWHC 1516 (Fam), High Court Family Division, 18 June 2026