ARTICLE
26 February 2026

Hunters Success In Child Abduction Case

HL
Hunters

Contributor

For over 300 years, we have worked with individuals, businesses, trusts and organisations of all kinds to advise on legal issues. Consistently recognised in the Times’ Best Law Firms, we offer comprehensive legal solutions, including litigation, tax and estate planning, family, property, and business services, with a dedicated, partner-led team.
Hunters Family Department (Amy Rowe, Maria Wright and Samuel Isaac) instructing Michael Edwards and Charlotte Baker of 4pb, successfully defended an application for the summary return of two children to California.
United Kingdom Family and Matrimonial
Hunters are most popular:
  • within Wealth Management topic(s)

Hunters Family Department (Amy Rowe, Maria Wright and Samuel Isaac) instructing Michael Edwards and Charlotte Baker of 4pb, successfully defended an application for the summary return of two children to California.

The case which is reported as C v D [2025] EWHC 3131 (Fam) concerned an application brought by a father under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Hunters acted for the mother, who had wrongfully removed the children from the USA. She raised a defense to the children's return pursuant to Article 13 (b) of the Convention — alleging that she had experienced serious and significant domestic abuse, including coercive and controlling behaviour, for many years.

The judge found that returning the children would expose them to psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation. "the risk of these children's primary carer being put in a position where she cannot meet their needs and the attendant risk that they might be cared for by (the father) can only be described as grave." The protective measures available were insufficient to reduce the risk of harm.

The Article 13 (1) (b) exception to return has been considered in great detail in recent years. The policy of the 1980 Hague Convention is to secure the return of children who have been wrongfully removed from the country of their habitual residence. The exception was - for a time - very narrowly interpreted in England and Wales. However, the Article 13 (1) (b) exception is often raised in cases where taking parents have experienced domestic abuse, and there is a growing understanding of the psychological and psychiatric harm experienced by parents, and by consequence their children, as a result of domestic abuse. That said, it is often the case that protective measures will ameliorate any risk of harm and mean that children can be returned safely. In C v D, the protective measures offered were insufficient in light of the seriousness of the risk to the mother's mental health of returning to the USA.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More