The High Court Family Division handed down judgment on 15 April 2026 in a cross-border dispute over a child's relocation, with domestic abuse allegations and parallel court proceedings abroad.
Key facts
- Who: Parents in a dispute over taking a child to live abroad, where domestic abuse is alleged and courts in two countries are involved.
- From: 15 April 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: C (A Child) (Relocation: Domestic Abuse: Section 91(14) Orders), Re [2026] EWHC 1591 (Fam)
Background
In Re C (A Child) (Relocation: Domestic Abuse: Section 91(14) Orders) [2026] EWHC 1591 (Fam), Ms Justice Henke dealt with cross-applications about a boy, C, whose parents are referred to as M and F. The hearing took place on 16 February 2026. The judgment was delivered in private, and an anonymised version was published on condition that the anonymity of the children and their family is strictly preserved.
On 2 May 2024 the father applied to the Family Court for an order allowing him to relocate C to a country the judgment calls "Second Hague Convention Country", where he and his family live. The mother applied the next day for a child arrangements order, a prohibited steps order and a specific issue order. She set out the risk she said the father posed to C and to her.
What happened in the proceedings
A prohibited steps order made by Mr Justice Peel on 7 March 2024 already prohibited the father from removing C from England and Wales and from removing him from the mother's care. At hearings in 2024, HHJ Talbott found each time that the English court had jurisdiction on the basis of habitual residence. C was joined as a party, a solicitor and Guardian were appointed for him, and video contact with the father was ordered.
At a fact-finding hearing on 2 to 4 June 2025 the father represented himself. Given the nature of the allegations, he was prohibited from cross-examining the mother himself, and a qualified legal representative did so on his behalf. The hearing was listed to decide whether the father had unjustifiably kept C in the other country.
Proceedings were also under way in that country. On the day of the final hearing, 5 November 2025, the father emailed the English court an order from the foreign court, saying it had declared that it had jurisdiction. The judgment records that this is not reflected in the foreign order. HHJ Talbott noted that the foreign court appeared unaware of the English proceedings. The hearing was adjourned and English court material was sent to the foreign court through the International Family Justice Office.
On 20 November 2025 Ms Justice Henke found that, since C was returned to this jurisdiction, he has been habitually resident in England. She confirmed that C is to live with his mother, that the father is prohibited from removing him from her care or travelling outside England with him, and that both parents are prohibited from travelling to the other country while the proceedings continue.
What this means for parents in relocation disputes
The case shows how an English court handled a dispute with an international element:
- The court treated jurisdiction as a matter to be kept under review, with habitual residence at the centre.
- Orders restricting travel and removal of the child stayed in place while the case continued.
- Material was shared with the foreign court through the International Family Justice Office.
Sources
- C (A Child) (Relocation: Domestic Abuse: Section 91(14) Orders), Re [2026] EWHC 1591 (Fam), High Court Family Division, 15 April 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2026/1591