![GU24P07346 - [2025] EWHC 1224 (Fam)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_0FrGysm.png){kind=logo}
Heading
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Before :
MR JUSTICE PEEL
Re G (No 2) (A Child: Return from USA)
The mother appeared in person remotely
The father appeared in person remotely
The child, through her Guardian, appeared represented by Solicitor from Cafcass Legal, Christopher Osborne
Hearing date: 15 May 2025
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 21 May 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
MR JUSTICE PEEL
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
Mr Justice Peel :
I shall refer to the parties as the mother and father. They have two children, L who was born in June 2007 and is just shy of 18, and G who was born in June 2010 and is just shy of 15.
This is the hearing of an application by the mother dated 6 October 2024 for G, who has been living in the United States with F since August 2024, to be returned to England. A circuit judge determined on 6 March 2025 that the application should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction on the basis that G was not habitually resident in England and Wales. The mother successfully appealed that decision, which was reversed by Harrison J on 9 April 2025. He concluded that this court does have jurisdiction. Among other directions, he joined G to the proceedings via a Guardian, and directed a wishes and feelings report.
The father opposes the application, certainly at this stage. He says that there should be a more extensive welfare enquiry before the court considers whether or not to make a return order.
The Guardian states that “A return order would be in line with G’s ascertainable wishes and feelings” but does not give a wider welfare view, given the limited scope of her wishes and feelings report and the short time since her appointment pursuant to the order of Harrison J. She has significant concerns about delaying the resolution of this case by commissioning further assessments before determining the application.
It was necessary for me to determine the scope of the inquiry at this hearing, and the extent to which oral evidence was required. I had in mind:
Re NY (A Child) [2019] UKSC 49; [2020] AC 665 where at paras 56-63 Lord Wilson suggested consideration should be given to eight interlinked factors when deciding how summary, or circumscribed, the application for a return order needs to be. Ultimately, the court must, as stated in the third factor, when considering the child’s welfare, make a decision “on the individual facts as to how extensive that enquiry should be”.
Re A and B (Children: Summary Return: Non-Convention State) [2022] EWCA Civ 1664, where Moylan LJ said at para 72:
“As in all welfare decisions, the extent of the court's inquiry and the court's determination of what order to make will depend on the facts of the particular case”.
Both the mother and the father attended remotely. They were courteous and composed, and I express my thanks to both of them. Similarly, I am grateful to the Guardian and solicitor from Cafcass Legal on her behalf.
I decided not to hear oral evidence from the mother or father, but did hear from the Guardian. In part, this because there are allegations of domestic abuse, and on the face of it QLRs should be appointed, but to follow this course would lead to a lengthy delay which is contrary to G’s interests. Further, the written evidence provided, in my judgment, ample material for me to evaluate what order should be made. I have before me a bundle of nearly 600 pages, which incorporates I think all the documents which were before Harrison J. I have the benefit of the Guardian’s report as to wishes and feelings. I have recent statements from the mother, the father and the father’s wife. Moreover, as will become apparent, the issue in this case is not so much the history, but the current views of G, albeit those views must be viewed in the context of all the circumstances. All parties were content with this approach which I canvassed with them at the outset.
The key issues therefore are:
Whether to make a final determination today or provide for a more wide ranging welfare inquiry to take place at a later date.
If I make a final determination today, whether it should be to grant the application for a return order or dismiss it.