FD25P00086 - [2025] EWHC 2190 (Fam)

The mother argues, pursuant to Article 20, that it would be a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to return T to Zimbabwe.

The obvious problem with that submission is that Article 20 has not been incorporated into domestic law by the United Kingdom, not being contained in Schedule 1 of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. This exception therefore fails on that basis alone.

The court is a public authority within s6(3)(a) Human Rights Act 1998 and is therefore bound by s6(1), which states that “[i]t is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right”.

However, there is nothing on the evidence that I can ascertain, that had I thought it appropriate to return T to Zimbabwe under the Hague Convention, which would give rise to a breach of T’s Article 8 rights. Further, if the Hague Convention is properly applied, it is most unlikely that there will be any breach of Article 8 or other Convention rights unless other factors supervene: In re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) [2011] UKSC 27 [2012] AC 144 at [52].