The High Court has ordered a child's summary return to Spain under the Hague Convention, after her mother relied on alleged abuse and her own mental health to resist it.
Key facts
- Who: Parents involved in Hague Convention child abduction proceedings in which a parent says a return would put the child at grave risk
- From: 22 October 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: AL (A Child)(Abduction: Spain: Art 13b: Mental Health), Re [2026] EWHC 2705 (Fam)
In Re AL [2026] EWHC 2705 (Fam), decided on 22 October 2026, Mr David Rees KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court (Family Division), ordered the summary return to Spain of a five-year-old girl, AL. The judgment was delivered in private and published on condition that the anonymity of the child and her family is strictly preserved.
Background
AL and both her parents are British citizens with permanent residency in Spain. She had lived there all her life, apart from short holidays, until March 2026, when her mother brought her to the UK for a trip that both sides agreed was meant to be short. Three days or so after arriving, the mother told the father she was extending the stay. The father reported the retention to the Spanish police on 20 April 2026, and his application to the High Court was issued on 1 June 2026.
The question
Both parents accepted that AL had been wrongfully retained in England and Wales and that she was habitually resident in Spain at the time. The judge said that, given those agreed facts, the court was obliged under Article 12 of the 1980 Convention to order her summary return unless the mother made out a defence under Article 13.
The mother relied on Article 13(b): that there is a grave risk that return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place her in an intolerable situation. She advanced two linked arguments. The first concerned alleged domestic violence and abuse by the father. The second concerned the effect on her own mental health if a return were ordered. The father gave a different account of the marriage and of the incidents she described.
The decision and the reasoning
The judge made the order the father sought. He made clear that he was not deciding AL's long-term welfare. The return is so that the courts of Spain, her home country, can make those decisions.
He set out principles drawn from earlier cases. The burden is on the person opposing return, and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The risk must be "grave", not merely real. The court considers both the likelihood of the risk and its gravity if it occurs. It looks to the future, at the situation if the child were returned, including the protective measures that could be put in place.
The judge also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Re DM [2026] UKSC 32. He explained that the "staged approach" used for allegations such as domestic abuse does not apply to an allegation that a parent is at risk of suicide. Such an allegation must be scrutinised with great care. If a real risk of suicide is established, the Supreme Court said, even a small risk could amount to a grave risk.
What this means for parents in Hague Convention proceedings
- The judgment is a decision on these parties' case. It sets out the principles the judge applied, which he took from earlier decisions.
- A return order under the Convention does not decide where the child will live in the long term. The judge said that is for the courts of the child's home country.
- The judge noted that the Article 13(b) exception has a high threshold, because the words "grave" and "intolerable" set a demanding test.
- Anyone facing Hague Convention proceedings should get legal advice promptly, as these applications are decided summarily.
Sources
- AL (A Child)(Abduction: Spain: Art 13b: Mental Health), Re [2026] EWHC 2705 (Fam), High Court (Family Division), 22 October 2026