[2025] EWHC 1713 (Fam)

Fecha: 04-Jul-2025

The two exceptions are (i) ES v LS (Abduction: Settlement) [2022] 1 FLR 1285 where Mostyn J considered the issue at [52]-[69] and took the contrary view. He concluded at [69] that “[h]aving looked at

40)

The two exceptions are (i) ES v LS (Abduction: Settlement) [2022] 1 FLR 1285 where Mostyn J considered the issue at [52]-[69] and took the contrary view. He concluded at [69] that “[h]aving looked at the matter carefully, I am convinced that ‘now’ means ‘as at the date of trial’”; and (ii) Re G and B (Children) (Abduction: Settlement: Grave Risk: Ukraine) [2025] EWHC 795 (Fam) where Harrison J stated at [53] that “I find Mostyn J's analysis persuasive and agree with it.” At[51] he observed that “[i]n the majority of cases, whether the issue is considered at the outset of the proceedings or the date of the final hearing is highly unlikely to yield different results.” However, at [54] he further observed as follows:

The issue may well become significant in cases which are remitted following an appeal or which otherwise have been subject to lengthy delays (perhaps because of a concurrent asylum claim). In my view, it would be absurd and wholly inconsistent with the child’s interests, if the court was required to examine an historical position and ignore more recent information. It could also create real forensic difficulties, bearing in mind that in settlement cases the most important evidence relating to the issue is usually a report from Cafcass which examines the child’s circumstances as they presently are. So far as I am aware, it has never been suggested that issues such as a child’s objections or questions of intolerability must be examined at the date proceedings commence. I can see no logical reason for adopting a different approach to the question of settlement.