McKenzie Friend Family Court vs Family Barrister

Facts & Procedural History The parties are British nationals of Pakistani heritage, residing permanently in the UK. They were married in Pakistan in 2007, later moved to the UK, and have one child. In December 2023, the wife attempted to initiate divorce proceedings in the UK, but was unable to complete them because the husband had destroyed the original (and only) copy of their marriage certificate. As a result, she instructed Pakistani solicitors to procure a duplicate certificate and commenced Khula proceedings (Islamic divorce initiated by a wife) in Pakistan in May 2024. The husband had moved out of the matrimonial home under police bail conditions in May 2024. Timeline of key events: • 24 May 2024 : Khula proceedings commenced in Pakistan. • 1 July 2024 : The wife attended a court hearing in Pakistan (the husband was not informed of the purpose of her trip). • 15 July 2024 : A provisional decree of divorce was issued in Pakistan. • 31 July 2024 : The wife served a copy of the Khula decree to the husband via WhatsApp (delivered). • 13 October 2024 : The Pakistani divorce was made final. The husband later applied in a Pakistani court to set aside the decree of divorce. That application was dismissed, though he continued to pursue appeals. On 31 January 2025 , the wife applied in the UK for permission to apply for financial relief in England & Wales under section 13 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (MFPA 1984). The husband initially did not contest the application, but later opposed it on several grounds, including jurisdiction, validity of the Khula, defects in notice and opportunity to participate, and public policy. The matter was heard in May 2025, and judgment was handed down on 23 June 2025. Thus, the central legal questions were: Should the UK court recognise the Pakistani Khula divorce under the Family Law Act 1986? If recognition is discretionary (under section 51 FLA 1986), should recognition be refused on grounds of procedural unfairness (lack of notice, inability to participate, possible deceit)? Should leave be granted under s 13 MFPA 1984 to permit the wife to apply for financial relief in UK? Whether UK financial proceedings should be stayed pending resolution of challenges to the divorce in Pakistan or whether expert evidence on Pakistani law should be admitted.  Legal Framework & Key Principles Recognition under Family Law Act 1986 Section 46 FLA 1986 sets out when an overseas divorce (or annulment or legal separation) must be recognised. In essence: • The divorce must be valid under the law of the country in which it was obtained. • At the relevant date, either party must have had a connecting factor (habitual residence, domicile, or nationality) in that country. If the statutory criteria are met, recognition is automatic (i.e. the court “shall” recognise the foreign divorce). However, under section 51 FLA 1986 , the court has a discretion to refuse recognition in certain circumstances (e.g. where the respondent was not given reasonable notice or opportunity to participate, or recognition would be manifestly contrary to public policy). The refusal power under s 51 should be used sparingly and only in compelling cases. Courts have emphasized that the public policy exception must be narrowly construed, and that the risk of creating a “limping marriage” (i.e. divorce valid in one jurisdiction but not in another) is a serious concern. Previous authorities (e.g. Olafisoye v Olafisoye) help to guide the balancing exercise (notice and participation vs public policy, finality, and fairness). Leave to Apply for Financial Relief: MFPA 1984 Under section 13 MFPA 1984 , a party who obtains a valid overseas divorce may apply for financial relief in the UK—but only if permission (leave) is granted by the court. The leave stage is threshold: the applicant must show a “substantial ground” for making the application. Section 15 sets out jurisdictional conditions (for instance, husband and wife’s domicile, property, or residence in England & Wales). Section 16 outlines factors for the court to consider at the leave stage (e.g. convenience, competing jurisdictions). If leave is granted, the substantive financial remedy proceedings may go ahead in the UK, subject to further contestation (e.g. jurisdiction, merits). The Court’s Analysis & Findings Section 46 / Basic Validity & Connecting Factors The court accepted that the Pakistani Khula divorce was valid under Pakistani law and, at present, was in force, unless set aside. The connecting factors were satisfied: the parties were Pakistani nationals and the divorce was obtained in Pakistan. Hence prima facie recognition under s 46 was appropriate. Section 51: Should Recognition Be Refused? The central battleground was whether to refuse recognition under s 51 because of procedural unfairness. The court examined: Notice & Opportunity to Participate The court found that the wife had not taken sufficient steps to notify the husband of the proceedings. She had known since 12 May 2024 that he was not at the family home, but did not provide updated addresses to the Pakistani court or to UK solicitors. The publication of notice in a local Pakistani newspaper was ineffective in the husband's case (given his UK whereabouts). The court held it unrealistic to expect that such notice would reach him. The husband only became aware of the proceedings after the provisional decree, so he lacked a proper opportunity to contest or participate at key stages. The court inferred that the failure to ensure effective notice was not a mere oversight but may have been intentional, or at least negligent, given the timing and circumstances. Although the wife later served the decree via WhatsApp (31 July 2024) and via the husband’s assistant, this was too late to provide meaningful participation at earlier stages. Thus, on the procedural fairness issue, the court concluded that sufficient notice and opportunity to contest had not been provided, which prima facie supports refusal under s 51. Public Policy & the Discretion to Recognise Even though the procedural defects would favour refusal, the court turned to the discretionary balancing exercise under s 51: The court acknowledged that the wife’s conduct had elements of unfairness (deceit or misleading aspects), but emphasized that recognition would avoid the creation of a limping marriage. The wife had been legitimately frustrated in pursuing divorce in the UK (owing to the destroyed marriage certificate). Recognising the Khula would serve justice in allowing financial remedy proceedings to proceed. The husband accepted that financial remedy proceedings should take place in the UK, and did not contend with the breakdown of marital relations per se. The court was reluctant to refuse recognition when the only justification would be procedural irregularities, especially where fairness and finality favour recognition. The court also noted that the husband did not promptly challenge the divorce, waiting months before applying to set aside. The risk that recognizing and then later setting aside the decree would waste time was considered, but the court considered that protective orders could address that risk. Ultimately, the court held that on balance public policy considerations favoured recognition of the Pakistani Khula, notwithstanding the procedural deficiencies. Hence, the court exercised its discretion under s 51 to permit recognition of the overseas divorce in the UK. Leave under Section 13 MFPA 1984 & Financial Remedies The court granted permission (leave) to the wife to apply for financial relief in the UK. The statutory conditions for jurisdiction under section 15 were satisfied (due to domicile, residence, or property links in the UK). Under section 16, England and Wales was the appropriate forum for resolving disputes over property and other financial claims. The husband had applied for a stay of proceedings or an adjournment for expert evidence on Pakistani law (i.e. the likelihood of the Khula being set aside). The court dismissed both requests: • A stay would unduly delay resolution. • The expert evidence application was procedurally deficient (no CV, no cost estimate, no timetable) and unnecessary at that stage. Therefore, the financial remedy proceedings could proceed without delay, subject to any later developments in Pakistani appeals. Holding & Implications Recognition of the overseas Khula divorce : The Pakistani divorce was recognised in the UK, under s 46 and notwithstanding procedural deficiencies, by exercising the discretion under s 51 in favour of recognition (given the public policy, avoidance of limping marriage, and fairness in context). Leave granted for financial claims : The wife was given permission under s 13 MFPA 1984 to bring a financial remedy claim in England & Wales. Proceedings to continue : The court refused to stay the UK proceedings pending outcome of Pakistani appeals, and refused to permit expert evidence at that stage. Caution for potential reversal : The court acknowledged that if the Pakistani decree is ultimately set aside, protective measures (such as adjustment orders) could be considered to mitigate unfairness. This ruling demonstrates the court’s willingness to adopt a pragmatic and flexible approach in cross-jurisdiction divorce recognition, especially where strict procedural perfection is lacking but where fairness and public policy weigh in favour of recognition. Critical Observations & Doctrinal Significance Procedural fairness vs finality : This case underscores that, even when procedural defects are present, they do not automatically lead to non-recognition if countervailing public policy and fairness considerations tilt the balance. Avoidance of limping marriages : The decision reinforces the judiciary’s aversion to a situation in which a couple is divorced abroad but remains married domestically—a source of legal and practical complexity. Discretion under section 51 is not lightly used : The court is cautious about refusing recognition unless there is clear injustice; mere defects are not alone enough. Effect of parties’ conduct : The court considered the manner in which the wife handled notice and disclosure. The fact that the husband had accepted downstream financial relief proceedings was relevant to the balancing exercise. Leave procedure vigilance : The decision illustrates that the leave threshold is not onerous where proper jurisdictional grounds and connections exist; but the court also enforces procedural discipline (rejecting the expert evidence request as inadequately placed). Ongoing risk : The possibility that the Pakistani decree could be overturned remains, and the court retains flexibility to revisit relief or make adjustments depending on developments.

Case Overview This appeal concerned an order made by Lay Magistrates on 17 December 2024 , which directed a joint "lives with" arrangement in respect of two children— 8 and 6 years old —allocating equal time with each parent (a week-on/week-off arrangement) The Mother appealed , seeking instead a “lives with” order in her favour, effectively seeking a change to arrangements to give her primary residence. Her appeal was unsuccessful ; the joint arrangement stood  the Lay Magistrates’ decision was upheld. Background & Key Issues Procedural and factual context : The parents were in a relationship from 2015 to 2022. There was no contact between the father and the children from July 2022 until July 2023 . The father applied for a child arrangements order in August 2022 . The case experienced substantial delays , due to factors like officer health and procedural disruptions. Cafcass involvement: A Section 7 report in November 2023 recommended the children live with the mother, with contact to the father, with some progression toward shared care. An addendum in April 2024 still considered shared care inappropriate. A new Cafcass Officer in October 2024 recommended a stepped move to shared care , eventually arriving at equal week-on/week-off living Grounds of appeal raised by the mother included: Alleged procedural irregularities —inadequate or delayed reasoning by the Magistrates, affecting timely appeal rights. Alleged bias by the Legal Advisor during hearings. Allegations of domestic abuse were, she argued, not sufficiently considered, including issues under Practice Direction 12J . Weight and evaluation of Cafcass reports , particularly the initial ones, were allegedly misread or misweighted. Misapplication of the welfare checklist under the Children Act 1989, including insufficient consideration of the children’s wishes and the impact of covert recording during handovers. Date of Magistrates' Order: 17 December 2024 Children’s Ages: 8 and 6 years old Outcome: Joint “lives with” (equal shared care) upheld on appeal Mother’s Appeal: She sought sole residence and raised procedural and substantive concerns, including domestic abuse allegations and issues with evaluation of evidence Cafcass Reports: Early reports supported the mother having residence, but the final report recommended shared care, which the court followed Key Takeaways The case demonstrates how Cafcass assessments , even when earlier reports favour one parent, can evolve in later assessments—and the court may give considerable weight to the most recent recommendation. It also highlights that procedural safeguards —like timely written reasons—are critical, especially to preserve rights of appeal. PD12J , which emphasises consideration of domestic abuse factors and their impact, continues to be a key tool in family law decision-making. For family law advice and family court representation contact Stephanie Heijdra direct access family barrister via sheijdra@winvolvedlegal.co.uk

A father has been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment after persistently breaching family court orders mandating the return of his children. The case underlines the UK courts’ firm approach to enforcing orders and emphasises the legal consequences of contempt in family law. Background and Offences The man appeared before the family court six times in the space of a year, each time for refusing to comply with court orders related to parenting time and the return of children. Despite repeated warnings and escalating enforcement measures, he continued to flout the court’s direction, resulting in a contempt ruling. The judge characterised the breaches as deliberate and sustained, leaving no alternative but immediate custodial penalty. Sentencing: A Clear Warning In delivering the six-month sentence, the court reaffirmed that disregard for judicial authority carries serious consequences. Enforcement of family court orders relies on respect for the rule of law and the child’s best interests. Non-compliance, if persistent, can and will lead to imprisonment. Legal Implications for Family Law This case acts as a stark reminder to parents that family court orders—whether relating to access, custody, or return of children—are legally binding and enforceable. Repeated failure to observe such orders may constitute contempt, attracting punitive actions including fines, restrictions, or incarceration. Legal professionals and families alike should note that parents are encouraged to resolve disputes via mediation or formal applications for variations rather than ignoring court orders. The court retains broad powers to enforce compliance when negotiations fail and judicial orders are dishonoured. Key Lessons for Parents & Practitioners Court orders are not optional. Ignoring them risks severe consequences. Seek modification—not avoidance. If circumstances change, you must make a formal application to vary orders. Mediation remains a first port of call for resolving disputes amicably before enforcement proceedings begin. Respect the court process. Persistent defiance undermines the legal process and can hinder one’s case. Conclusion: Enforcement and Compliance in Family Courts The father’s imprisonment serves both a punitive and deterrent purpose. The case demonstrates the UK family court system’s readiness to impose custodial sentences when necessary to protect legal integrity and uphold children’s rights. Family law professionals should reinforce the importance of compliance and proactive engagement with court orders. By reinforcing the principle that non-compliance equals contempt , this case should encourage disputing parents to seek constructive, legal solutions rather than resorting to avoidance. Ultimately, the court’s authority exists to uphold the best interests of the child—and defiance of that authority puts all parties at risk. family court breach, contempt sentencing, parenting order enforcement, father jailed for disobeying court orders, family law compliance, court enforcement penalties. For family law advice and family court representation contact Stephanie Heijdra family barrister and divorce barrister via sheijdra@winvolvedlegal.co.uk or via 02071014682 https://youtube.com/shorts/lch0VNNc_6g?feature=share

A significant family court decision regarding child arrangements: F v M [2025] EWFC 208 🧑‍⚖️ Case Overview: F v M [2025] EWFC 208 F v M [2025] EWFC 208 , reported on 20 June 2025, concerns a child arrangements dispute involving four children , aged 13, 12, 10, and 8 . The Family Court had to decide whether and how the children’s residence should be varied from the mother to the father. 📌 Key Facts & Background The children had previously lived primarily with their mother. The father applied to change arrangements, arguing it would be in the children's welfare interests to live with him. The court considered factors including parental engagement, children’s views, and overall welfare needs. ⚖️ Court’s Decision The Court ultimately ordered that the children be moved to live with their father , concluding that: The father’s care better served the children’s emotional and developmental needs. The children’s reasonable preferences were taken into account at age-appropriate levels. The decision reflected the welfare checklist under s.1 of the Children Act 1989 , prioritising stability, parental capability, and attachment. 🧠 Key Legal & Practice Highlights 1. Children’s Wishes and Feelings At ages 13, 12, 10, and 8, the children’s preferences were significant but not determinative . The court carefully weighed these alongside broader welfare considerations. 2. Welfare Checklist Focus Householder applications, such as these, hinge on long-term welfare , including emotional development, safety, and attachment history. The Court followed statutory guidance strictly. 3. Parental Capacity and Engagement Active participation, planning, and demonstrated willingness by the father strengthened his case. In contrast, inconsistencies or limited input from the mother were material to the outcome. 4. Court Timing The decision reflects a concluding order , rather than interim arrangements, marking a long-term shift to the father's residence. This demonstrates the court’s readiness to make final arrangements where appropriate and supported by evidence. 📝 Implications for Practice Caseworkers and legal advisors should prepare robust evidence of parental capacity, engagement with services, and emotional bonds. Client interviews should carefully record and communicate children’s views in an age-appropriate but credibly documented manner. Practitioners should emphasise consistency in parenting and contact —even if a client may not ultimately secure primary residence. Comparative Cases & Context While F v M [2025] EWFC 208 forms part of a family law trend prioritising children’s welfare and parental suitability, other notable recent cases include: F v M [2025] EWFC 38(B) — highlighted how non-engagement can still coexist with positive outcomes where children’s welfare needs are paramount. Re T and G [2025] EWFC 15 — considered allegations of parental alienation in the context of children resisting contact. For family court representation and family law advice, please contact Stephanie Heijdra public access family lawyer via sheijdra@winvolvedlegal.co.uk #FamilyCourt2025 #ChildArrangements #FamilyLaw #UKLaw #ParentalRights #LegalUpdate #englishlaw #englandlaw https://youtube.com/shorts/K6eOMs_AR4E

If your partner is refusing to let you see your child in England and Wales , there are clear steps you can take to assert your rights and secure contact. The law focuses on the best interests of the child , and maintaining a relationship with both parents is usually seen as essential unless there are safeguarding concerns. ✅ Step 1: Try to Resolve Things Amicably Start with open, respectful communication. Misunderstandings or emotional tensions can sometimes be resolved informally. Keep conversations focused on the child’s wellbeing, not past issues between you and your partner. ✅ Step 2: Consider Mediation If direct communication fails, mediation is the next step. A trained, neutral mediator can help both of you agree on child arrangements (where the child lives, how often they see each parent, etc.). Mediation is often quicker, cheaper, and less stressful than going to court. In most cases, you must attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM) before applying to court. ✅ Step 3: Apply to Family Court If mediation doesn’t work or your partner refuses to cooperate, you can apply to the Family Court for a Child Arrangements Order . This legally binding order sets out: Where your child lives When and how they spend time with you Whether communication (calls, messages, video chats) should happen The court's primary concern is your child’s welfare , and it will make decisions based on what is in their best interests. The court will consider factors such as: The child’s needs, wishes and feelings (depending on their age and maturity) Each parent’s ability to meet those needs Any risk of harm or safeguarding issues ⚖️ Do I Need Parental Responsibility? If you’re the child’s mother , you automatically have parental responsibility. If you’re the father , you have parental responsibility if: You were married to the mother at the time of birth Or you’re named on the birth certificate (for children born after 1 December 2003) If you don’t have it, you can apply to the court to obtain it. ✅ What if My Ex Still Refuses After a Court Order? Breaching a court order is serious. If your ex continues to block contact: You can return to court to enforce the order The court may impose penalties, including fines, community service, or in extreme cases, custody The court can also vary the order to change the living or contact arrangements Final Thoughts You have legal rights as a parent, and your child has a right to have a relationship with both parents—unless doing so would cause them harm. Start with communication or mediation, but don’t hesitate to go to court if your contact is being unfairly denied. For tailored advice and support, speak to a family law barrister, solicitor or contact organisations such as Cafcass . Early action can help protect your relationship with your child and provide stability for them during a difficult time. For family law advice and family court representation, contact Stephanie Heijdra Family Barrister via sheijdra@winvolvedlegal.co.uk

If your partner isn’t paying the child maintenance they agreed to, you have several options under the law in England and Wales to help you recover the payments and ensure continued financial support for your child. 1. Check the Agreement Type Start by identifying the type of agreement you have: Family-based arrangement : An informal agreement between you and your ex-partner, not legally enforceable. Consent order : A legally binding order made by the court. Child Maintenance Service (CMS) arrangement : Formal agreement managed by the government. The steps you take will depend on which of these applies. 2. If It’s a Family-Based Arrangement Family-based arrangements rely on mutual trust and cooperation. If your ex-partner stops paying: Try to resolve it directly by talking or writing to them. If that fails, you can apply to the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) for a formal calculation and enforcement. Note: You must usually pay a £20 application fee unless you’re a survivor of domestic abuse or under 19 years old. 3. If It’s a Court-Ordered Arrangement (Consent Order) If your ex-partner agreed to maintenance via a consent order , and they’re not paying: You can ask the Family Court to enforce the order. The court may take enforcement action, such as: Deducting money from wages or bank accounts Sending bailiffs to seize goods Imposing penalties or even imprisonment in extreme cases 4. If You’re Using the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) If the CMS is involved and your ex-partner misses payments: CMS can automatically enforce payments through: Deduction from earnings via their employer Deduction from bank accounts Taking legal action , including court orders or property charging orders You can also request to move from a Direct Pay (where payments are made directly) to Collect and Pay , where CMS collects the money and sends it to you—although a fee is charged for this service. 5. Additional Tips Keep records of all missed payments and communications. Seek legal advice if enforcement is needed or the amount owed is significant. Contact CMS or a solicitor if the situation involves complex financial arrangements or suspected income concealment. Final Thoughts Child maintenance is a legal and moral obligation. If your partner fails to uphold it, you do have options—ranging from informal discussions to government or court enforcement. Don’t suffer in silence. If your child isn’t receiving the support they’re entitled to, take action early and seek help from the CMS or a family law professional. For family law advice and family court representation contact Stephanie Heijdra direct access family lawyer via sheijdra@winvolvedlegal.co.uk and 02071014682

In KV v KV (No 2) [2024] EWFC 359 , Sir Jonathan Cohen considered where divorce proceedings should take place when an ultra-high-net-worth couple live across multiple jurisdictions. The wife (W) applied for divorce in England, while the husband (H) filed rival proceedings in another country (referred to as Country E). Background The couple enjoyed a luxury lifestyle with properties in England, Switzerland, France, the Caribbean, and Country E. They moved tax residence away from Country E to Switzerland following a non-domicile election. W and their children relocated to England, establishing a permanent home and schooling there. H remained primarily in Switzerland, spending limited time in England within non-dom tax limits. Their marriage ended in 2021; W filed for divorce and initiated financial proceedings in England in early 2024. Shortly afterwards, H issued divorce proceedings in Country E, citing his habitual residence there, while arguing W remained habitually resident in Country E. Key Legal Issues Habitual Residence The central question was whether W was habitually resident in England when she applied for divorce. Habitual residence requires a stable and established centre of life over the previous year—not just a certain number of days spent in the country. The court noted that time spent in itself was less important than where family life, schooling, social ties, and pets were based. Although there was no single residence, W’s lifestyle, schooling for the children, and her active life in England pointed to habitual residence there. Forum Non Conveniens Even with jurisdiction established, the court had to decide whether it was the appropriate forum or if proceedings should be stayed in favour of Country E. Considerations included: Asset location (including substantial property in England and France) Potential difficulties with enforcement of financial orders in Country E H’s attempts to move assets into trusts abroad W’s limited ability to pursue claims outside England Court’s Decision Jurisdiction confirmed – W was habitually resident in England; jurisdiction under domestic law was satisfied. England deemed the most suitable forum – Given practical ability to enforce financial orders and W’s inability to pursue claims effectively in Country E, England offered the better path. Sir Jonathan Cohen therefore allowed W to proceed with her divorce and financial claims in England, dismissing H’s rival proceedings. Practical Implications Duty to File Financial Disclosure Even amid jurisdictional disputes, the law requires at least a basic outline of each party’s finances under rules governing interim maintenance and legal fees. Tax Residence and Habitual Residence Tax planning and non-dom elections do not override legal analysis of habitual residence. Personal and family life location, educational ties, and intention play a crucial role. Choice of Forum For couples with assets across borders, where a spouse has stronger workplace, personal, and financial ties will often determine the optimal legal venue. Courts analyse both jurisdiction and practical enforceability of future orders. Tips for Couples in Similar Situations Assess habitual residence carefully Consider schooling, family life, home ties, and intentions—not just days spent in a country Prepare clear financial disclosure Even during a jurisdiction dispute, interim orders may depend on transparency Consider future enforcement Choose a forum where assets can be effectively divided and enforced Seek early legal advice Especially when couples live internationally with significant wealth Final Thoughts KV v KV (No 2) [2024] EWFC 359 serves as a reminder that English courts take a holistic view of habitual residence and forum suitability for divorce and financial claims. The case underlines that: Tax residence does not dictate legal jurisdiction Courts conduct qualitative analysis when determining habitual residence England can be the forum of choice if enforcement and fairness favour it For couples with multi-jurisdictional ties, understanding where and how to bring divorce proceedings is vital. Legal guidance at an early stage can help clarify which court is best placed to consider financial and family matters. Seek specialist advice if you're a cohabiting or married couple with ties to multiple countries—doing so early can make the process smoother and outcomes fairer. Contact Stephanie Heijdra family lawyer via sheijdra@winvolvedlegal.co.uk

In Re v RL [2025] EWHC 1176 (Fam) (15 May 2025), the High Court in England and Wales considered a summary return application under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The applicant, a father based in Italy, sought the immediate return of his child (identified as R) from England. 🔍 Case Summary The father applied for the child’s prompt return under Article 12 of the Hague Convention, relying on a summary procedure intended to determine jurisdiction quickly. The mother defended the application by invoking a grave risk objection under Article 13(b), asserting that returning R to Italy would place the child in psychological or physical danger. Legal Tests & Court’s Framework Summary Nature : The court reviewed only whether jurisdiction existed, leaving ultimate welfare considerations for later proceedings unless a grave risk had already been demonstrated. Burden and Threshold : Under Article 13(b), the respondent must establish that return "would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation." Key Findings The judge found the mother's evidence — concerning a risk to her emotional wellbeing — did not meet the required grave risk threshold. Reports indicated that the mother’s health and mental state, while fragile, did not confirm a risk substantial enough to refuse return under the Convention. No evidence suggested that Polish social services would act detrimentally once R returned, nullifying concerns of immediate administrative interference or domestic harm. Outcome The court granted summary return : R was ordered to be returned to Italy, enabling the father to initiate further legal proceedings in the child’s habitual residence. The decision underscores the High Court's rigorous standard for rejecting Hague return requests, emphasising that emotional or mental health concerns must be supported by compelling evidence. ⚖️ Implications for Hague Return Applications 1. High Bar for Grave Risk Article 13(b) objections require more than general anxiety or distress. Courts will only refuse a summary return where there is substantial risk to a child’s safety or well‑being. 2. Importance of Habitual Residence Article 12’s criteria are strict: once a child is habitually resident in one jurisdiction, the court must order return unless a grave risk is clearly demonstrated. 3. Limited Scope of Summary Proceedings These hear early jurisdictional disputes. Welfare issues are reserved for full hearings unless immediate harm is proven. 4. Need for Solid Evidence Cases referencing previous mental health issues or speculative harm are unlikely to succeed. Robust factual evidence—medical, psychological, or social protection—is essential. ✅ Practical Advice for Parents If seeking return, apply promptly under Article 12. If opposing return on grave risk grounds, present strong evidence: independent medical reports, expert testimony, or documented past incidents. Understand summary return is just the start—welfare hearings can follow in the child's habitual residence. Final Thoughts Re v RL [2025] EWHC 1176 (Fam) highlights the strict application of the Hague Convention’s summary return process in proceedings in England and Wales. It clarifies that to prevent a child’s return, objections must rise above general emotional difficulties and meet the high legal threshold of “grave risk.” Without this threshold being met, courts are likely to order return, after which detailed welfare proceedings may proceed abroad. For parents involved in cross-border disputes, this decision emphasises the urgency of seeking prompt legal advice and securing persuasive, evidence-based arguments—particularly when the child’s safety or emotional welfare is at stake. For family law advice and family court representation, please contact Stephanie Heijdra family law barrister via sheijdra@winvolvedlegal.co.uk and 02071014682

Here’s a clear breakdown of the key points in M v A (No 2: Application to Set Aside Return Order) [2025] EWHC 1344 (Fam) , a High Court case under the Hague Convention framework: Background & Context The mother (M) had previously lost a summary return hearing, where a court ordered the children (aged 9 and 6) to be returned to Poland under the 1980 Hague Convention, enforced by the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. She applied to set aside that return order, claiming her fragile mental health and suicidal ideation created a grave risk if she were separated from the children. Legal Issues Considered Article 13(b): Whether evidence of the mother’s mental health issues amounted to a grave risk of psychological harm justifying non-return. Change in Circumstances: Whether new developments (mental health decline and refusal to return) met the legal threshold to unsettle the prior return decision. Procedural History On 26 November 2024, the initial return order was made; crucially, the mother was not required to give oral evidence. By late December 2024, her GP diagnosed significant mental health concerns, including suicidal ideation, prompting the court to stay the return order. Court's Findings Oral Evidence: The court confirmed it was entitled to make the original decision without requiring oral testimony from the mother. Mental Health: While her condition worsened post-order, it didn’t automatically meet the high bar for “grave risk.” Nevertheless, it was a key factor. Risk Analysis: The greater risk stemmed from the emotional harm to the children if relocated without their mother—not necessarily from the move itself. Domestic Abuse: Allegations of domestic abuse were serious and relevant, given the potential involvement of Polish social services if the children returned. Outcome The judge found that the Article 13(b) defence succeeded—the combination of the mother’s mental state and the risk to the children (psychological and emotional) justified non-return. Application granted: The return order was set aside; the father’s enforcement application was dismissed. Significance The judgment reaffirms the high legal bar for overturning Hague return orders—“fundamental change” must be convincingly shown. It highlights the courts’ balanced approach : mental health and emotional welfare now form a critical lens in child abduction law. However, profound evidence is required to satisfy that threshold.  In summary M v A (No 2) underscores the rigorous test for setting aside Hague return orders under Article 13(b). New evidence—especially impacting mental health and grave risk—can justify non-return, but only if it clearly shows serious emotional or psychological harm to the children and is supported by substantial evidence.