[2025] EWHC 1713 (Fam)

it is common ground that B benefits greatly from her relationship with F which is key to furthering her welfare and to her sense of stability. It will not be feasible for F to continue to travel to this jurisdiction as frequently as he has done so far for an indefinite period. The inevitability of the court refusing to return B to Portugal will be that her relationship with F suffers significantly, which cannot be in her best interests. On the contrary, if B is returned to Portugal, M will return with her, and she will be able to enjoy a full and meaningful relationship with both parents;

B will be well able to adapt to life back in Portugal. She speaks and understands Portuguese, has many friends and family in Portugal and two homes there which she has visited and where she has her own room and belongings. The Cafcass Officer is confident that B will adapt to a return to Portugal with the support of her parents. Further, if F is right about what B has been led to believe by both her parents, she will be anticipating a return to Portugal and is looking forward to it, and a refusal to return will be confusing and upsetting for her; and

although it is accepted that Convention policy arguments usually carry less weight in cases where a child or children are settled, in the circumstances of this case, Convention policy should militate in favour of a return to Portugal. This is not a case of a parent who has simply waited and has only sought B’s return after two and a half years of her being here. Quite the opposite; F sought B’s return immediately, as soon as she was wrongfully retained. F has continued to seek B’s return since then, but has tried to do so amicably and via non-court means. Crucially, he was also continuously reassured until very recently that M would return to Portugal, and believed that until M reneged on the parties’ agreement. The steps taken by F are entirely understandable and reasonable, and that is the only reason why proceedings were not issued sooner. There is (or should be) a policy interest in acknowledging parents who seek to resolve matters without resorting to the court immediately. This is an entirely different situation to a parent who has only just raised an issue after two and a half years, and therefore this case is distinguishable to the reported cases where the court has refused a return where settlement has been established.

in circumstances where B has spent almost the entirety of her life living in this country and F delayed in bringing his remedy pursuant to the Hague Convention for two and a half years facilitating B’s settlement, it is axiomatic that the court should exercise its discretion to refuse an order for summary return in circumstances where M and B will face a myriad of obstacles and hardship in seeking to reintegrate into a stable and secure lifestyle in Portugal;

if allowed to remain living in this country, M will be able to recover from the stress and low mood and symptoms of depression that she has suffered as a result of these proceedings. B and M have established firm roots and a thriving and fulfilling life in this country; and

in exceptional circumstances in a Hague case, B has benefited from regular and highly frequent visits from F. She has also been able to regularly visit him and the extended paternal family in Portugal since moving to this country. F’s suggestion that he will not be able to maintain the same frequency of travel appears self-serving and should not be accepted at face value. He has faced no impediment in his work or financial position in travelling between the two countries over this extensive period. Flights between Faro and City Z can be purchased for less than £50. There is no reason why F could not maintain the same level of commitment to his relationship with his daughter going forward.