FD24P00857 - [2025] EWHC 835 (Fam)

The application before the court is for the summary return of S, a young boy, and T, a young girl, to Italy. Both children are under five. The applicant is their father and the respondent is their mother. The application is dated 30 December 2024 and is made pursuant to the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (incorporating, by Schedule 1, the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, hereafter the "1980 Hague Convention").

The father is an Italian citizen. The mother was a citizen of a third country, but renounced her citizenship and is now a British citizen. The parties began a relationship in 2015 and married in London in 2018. In April 2018 they relocated to Italy. S was born in 2020 in Italy. T was born in 2022 in Italy. The children are dual British and Italian citizens. Their mother tongue is English but they also speak some Italian.

On 21 April 2024 the family travelled from Italy to London to ‘relocate’. The exact circumstances of the relocation require to be considered. The father said the move to London was a temporary one and was wrongful as the respondent practised deception on him. The mother says the father agreed to a permanent relocation and there was never any deception about the move. There is no dispute S and T were habitually resident in Italy just before 21 April 2024. Nor is there a dispute the applicant was exercising rights of custody at that time.

The family rented a home in London and the children attended nursery. The mother worked from London. The father commuted to northern Italy for his work until he was made redundant in July 2024 at which point he returned to be with his family in London. On 13 November 2024 the mother lodged a petition for divorce with the HMCTS on-line portal. This was issued on 18 November 2024. On the same day, the father purchased flights for the family to return to Italy on 14 December 2024. On 5 December 2024 the respondent issued an application for a non-molestation order, and a prohibited steps order, preventing the relocation of the children to Italy. She subsequently issued an application for a child arrangements order on 16 December 2024. On 30 December 2024 the application before me was issued. The father obtained new employment in Italy and began this role on 3 January 2025. He left the London home permanently on 3 February 2025.

The father’s primary case is that the removal from Italy to England and Wales on 21 April 2024 was the result of deceptive pre-meditated conduct by the mother and was wrongful and that as the children were habitually resident in Italy, Article 3 of the 1980 Hague Convention is thereby established. However, in the alternative it is submitted that the move on 21 April 2024 was only ever for a short period until November 2024 and there was therefore a repudiatory retention after 21 April 2024 which can be made out as early as 1 May 2024. I am asked to make the return order.

The mother’s case is that the parties agreed to relocate from Italy to England and Wales. Further, they are habitually resident in England and Wales. Alternatively, the return order would expose the children to the grave risk of harm within the meaning of Article 13 (b) of the 1980 Hague Convention. Mr Anderson recognised he was no longer pursuing an exception to the return based upon acquiescence. I am asked to refuse the return order.

At a hearing on 26 and 27 March 2025, I heard evidence from the father and the mother and a friend of the father’s. I reserved my decision. I have concluded the appropriate order is to make the return order.

Mr Anderson reminded of me of FPR Practice Direction 3AA at the outset of the hearing and whilst he invited me not to direct any participation directions he helpfully reminded me of the court’s independent duty to consider whether to do so. Having considered the matter I agreed and made no directions for participation directions.

The trial bundle runs (without permission) to over 800 pages (I am grateful for the appropriate apology received). The parties have poured over every detail of their lives from 2023 to 2024 to seek to make good their respective cases. Intricate submissions have been made on the minutiae of their every day lives. This is a summary jurisdiction. It is not possible to record every detail of the evidence. I simply summarise the overarching evidential position of the parties. They have both been well represented by experts in this area and it is not necessary or proportionate to resolve every detailed submission on lengthy and intricate evidence.

I have also weighed carefully whether the domestic abuse which has been admitted, and which is alleged, should lead to a different outcome, but I am satisfied a return order is the appropriate relief in the context of the evidence and law to which these proceedings give rise.