Court permits relocation to Sweden in Re C, reversing earlier Hague Convention refusal

The High Court has granted a mother's application to relocate her nine-year-old daughter to Sweden, four months after refusing the same mother's application for the child's summary return under the Hague Convention on the basis that the child had become habitually resident in England.

In Re C (A Child: Relocation to Sweden) [2026] EWHC 2013 (Fam), Mr Justice Poole held that a full welfare analysis, conducted under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, produced a different outcome from the earlier Hague Convention proceedings, which had turned on the narrower question of habitual residence rather than the child's best interests.

The child, referred to as C, was born in Sweden and lived there with her mother until January 2025, when she moved to England to live with her father under an informal arrangement intended to last at least a year. The judge had previously found that the father breached that arrangement from July 2025 by preventing contact between the mother and C, a breach that continued until the court intervened in November 2025, but had nonetheless concluded that C had by then become habitually resident in England, precluding a summary return.

The mother subsequently applied to relocate C to Sweden permanently. Evidence before the court included two reports from a Cafcass family court adviser, who found that C's wishes had become markedly more forthright between December 2025 and June 2026, culminating in an unambiguous request to return to her mother's care. The judge accepted these wishes as authentically the child's own, rejecting a suggestion that she had been influenced by her mother, and gave them significant weight given her age and maturity.

The father, who had a lengthy history of criminal convictions in both Sweden and England including offences of violence, disputed the application and proposed that C remain with him in England alongside her half brother. The judge found the father evasive in evidence, noted concerns about his temper and his history of shouting at the child, and was troubled by his previous conduct in misleading C's school about the existence of a non-molestation order in order to restrict the mother's contact. By contrast, the judge found the mother an impressive and consistent witness whose account withstood challenge.

Applying the welfare checklist and the guidance summarised by the Court of Appeal in Re O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation) [2025] EWCA Civ 888, the judge conducted a global, holistic evaluation of the realistic options rather than treating proportionality as a separate cross-check. He weighed factors favouring continuity in England, including C's school progress and her bond with her half brother, against her deeper roots in Sweden, her extended family there, and the unsuitability of her current one-bedroom accommodation in England.

The judge concluded that C's clearly expressed wishes, combined with concerns about the father's capacity to meet her emotional needs over the longer term and his history of curtailing contact, meant her welfare was best served by relocating to Sweden to live with her mother, who had always intended the English arrangement to be temporary. The relocation was ordered to take place promptly to allow C to resettle before the start of the new school year, with the parties encouraged to agree arrangements for her to spend time with her father in both countries.

The judgement is subject to a reporting restriction preserving the anonymity of the child and her family.