FD25P00286 - [2025] EWHC 2175 (Fam)

The mother has sought a range of protective measures in the event that a return is ordered. The father’s proposal is more limited.

The mother sought the following

The father agrees to (d) to (j) with the primary difference here being his proposal that these protective measures last until the Portuguese court is seized of the matter. He proposes €1,500 a month for rent; €1,500 for maintenance and that the mother apply for public funding for litigation.

In his counsel’s position statement, the father also agreed/undertook:

There is a hearing on 3 July 2025 but I was not informed of the remit of the hearing.

The mother’s Portuguese lawyers have provided useful assistance. They state that:

The mother’s position is that the father’s time limited proposals, and his suggestion that she live either at the family home, or his rental property, would be a further instance of his coercive control. She expressed great anxiety at the prospect of returning to the family home or a property controlled by the father. She is concerned by the prospect of the father making an application to vary financial proposals that would leave her dependent upon the state as she would be unable to find employment or afford a property herself.

I consider the protective measures and whether or not they meet the cumulative risks.

With alternative accommodation, the mother will be able to live separately from the father. The father will not attend at her address. That will mean that his opportunities to exert controlling and coercive behaviour towards the mother, and O’s exposure to such behaviour, will end. Q will be protected.

The mother has sought €2,700 a month for rental properties. Her particulars are not of properties in X; two have 3 bedrooms and one is in what appears to be a rather grand building. The father has said that €1,500 is sufficient. I consider that €2,000 should be made available.

The father has offered €1,500 by way of maintenance with the mother seeking €1,750. The sum of €1,500 should be paid.

I decline to order that the mother return to X pursuant to Art 11 of the 1996 Hague Convention. The father argues that the mother’s refusal at present to allow direct contact means that “irreparable harm” would be caused if Q does not return to X. Contact does not need to take place in X. Ultimately, the Portuguese court would determine the time that Q spent with her father.

Ms Baker was unable to provide an authority to support her proposal that the mother receive financial assistance for legal proceedings. She has secured legal advice already. She can obtain, it seems, some form of public funding. Portugal is a signatory to Brussels IIA and the 1996 Convention and will be able to provide access to justice for the mother.

The father has proposed other financial measures: private health care; provision of a car; mobile phone contract.

The mother will not be subject to financial control with these measures in place subject to the point I make about duration below.

The father has also agreed to give undertakings not to:

The primary difference between the parties’ positions concerns the duration of the protective measures.

The father suggests that the protective measures endure until the Portuguese court is seized of the matter. I understand that there is a parents’ conference on 3 July and that both parents have made cross applications. But I do not know when and how issues regarding financial provision would be determined by the court in Portugal. It appears that the mother might be able to claim some child support and may receive some rental assistance. But I know very little about that and, should the father cease payment, the mother would be left reliant on the state.

The Good Practice Guide states that protective measures are “not to be imposed as a matter of course and should be of a time-limited nature that ends when the State of habitual residence of the child is able to determine what, if any, protective measures are appropriate for the child”.

But each case is fact specific. Protective measures that are imposed must provide protection according to the facts of this particular case. I consider that the mother needs certainty in relation to these protective measures to provide sufficient protection against coercive financial control. I conclude that the orders should last for sufficient time, without the risk of variation, to allow the mother to re-establish herself in Portugal and make whatever applications are appropriate. I do not accede to the suggestion that they endure for 12 months. I consider that the duration of the protective measures should be for 6 months.

Ms Baker advances the argument that a mirror order should be in place in advance of return. Ms Grieve impresses on me that the father has not seen his daughter in person since May. She asserts that registration in the Portuguese court can take 1 to 2 months, and the court is closed from mid-July so the parties would need to proceed promptly.

These are summary proceedings. But, given my findings I consider that it is vital to ensure that protective measures are enforceable, and thus effective, in advance of return. A mirror order should be put in place in advance of return.

The protective measures, therefore, will be as sought by the mother at (a) to (j) with the following amendments

I am satisfied that, that with these protective measures in place, the risk on return can be sufficiently ameliorated so that Q not be will not be exposed to a grave risk within the scope of Art 13 (b).

I make an order that Q be returned to Portugal with these protective measures in place forthwith on registration of the order in Portugal. Both parties will need to give undertakings to do all they can to expedite that process.

I would ask that counsel draft an order and revert to me with any issues.

That is my judgment.