The High Court has heard a Hague Convention application to return an Eritrean child to Germany, where the mother and child hold UK refugee status and the mother relies on a risk of onward removal alongside other factors.
Key facts
- Who: The parties in Re CDG: a father seeking a child's return to Germany, a mother who holds UK refugee status, and the child, who holds refugee status in line with hers
- From: 16 September 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: CDG (A Child) (Article 13(b): Refugee Status and Safe Third Country), Re [2026] EWHC 2425 (Fam)
Background
In Re CDG [2026] EWHC 2425 (Fam), HHJ Stephen Smith, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Family Division, dealt with a father's application for the return of a child, CDG, to Germany under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Hearings took place on 27 July and 16 September 2026. The judgment was delivered in private and published on condition that the family's anonymity is strictly preserved.
The mother, father and CDG are Eritrean citizens. They had lived lawfully in Germany, where the mother held humanitarian protection status. In September 2025 the mother brought CDG and his elder half-sibling to the UK by small boat and claimed asylum. On 6 November 2025 the Secretary of State recognised her as a refugee and granted five years' leave to remain. Both children were granted refugee status "in line" with her, with leave valid until November 2030. No separate protection needs were put forward for either child.
It was common ground that CDG was wrongfully removed from Germany, and that a return order should be made unless Article 13(b) applied.
The question
Article 13(b) allows a court not to order a child's return if there is a grave risk that return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. The central issue was whether, if a return order were made, there would be a risk of onward refoulement (removal) from Germany to Eritrea, and whether that risk, viewed cumulatively with other case-specific factors, would meet the Article 13(b) threshold.
The arguments
The mother argued this was a "cumulative intolerability" case. She relied on an unresolved risk of onward removal together with her allegations of abuse, uncertainty over her immigration status in Germany and other factors. She did not contend that refugee status in the UK is automatically a bar to a return order.
The parties had been unable to find a suitable expert on German immigration law, so the court had no expert evidence on the point. The father said any risk of onward removal was vanishingly small and theoretical. CDG's guardian largely agreed with the mother on onward removal because of the lack of expert evidence.
The legal framework
The judge set out the Article 13(b) principles, including that the defence has a high threshold and that the court must examine in concrete terms the situation the child would be in on return. He also reviewed Article 33(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which protects against refoulement, including indirect return through a third country.
He noted that the statutory bar on removing someone with a pending asylum claim, in sections 77 and 78 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, does not apply to those who have been recognised as refugees.
What this means for parents in Hague Convention cases
The judgment shows how a court approaches an Article 13(b) argument that combines a claimed risk of onward removal with other factors: it looks at the particular circumstances of the proposed return and the evidence available about what would happen in the other country. Parents facing a Hague application who have claimed asylum or been recognised as refugees may wish to get legal advice early and check what evidence exists on immigration status and protective measures.
Sources
- CDG (A Child) (Article 13(b): Refugee Status and Safe Third Country), Re [2026] EWHC 2425 (Fam), High Court (Family Division), 16 September 2026