High Court rules on international child abduction case

6 Mar 2025Court Report

The High Court ruled on a complex international child abduction case involving a summary return order to China

High Court rules on international child abduction case

The High Court, presided over by Mrs Justice Judd, ruled on a complex case involving the summary return of a child to China. The case, titled E vs O, revolved around the application for a summary return order concerning a three-year-old girl, I, who had been taken from China to England by her father without the mother's consent.

The mother, a Chinese national, sought the return of her daughter to China, arguing that the child had been clandestinely removed from her home. The father, a British national, opposed the application, citing concerns about the legal system in China and the potential impact on his relationship with his daughter.

The court examined the legal framework governing non-Hague Convention cases, referencing key precedents such as Re J (A Child)(Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) [2005] UKHL 40 and J v J (Return to Non-Hague Convention Country [2021] EWHC 2412 (Fam). The court emphasised that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in such cases.

Mrs Justice Judd considered the expert evidence on Chinese law, which indicated that Chinese courts rarely permit relocation without parental agreement and have limited means to enforce cross-border contact. The father expressed concerns about his ability to secure a visa to stay in China and potential legal repercussions for abduction.

The mother argued that the child was settled in China, with strong ties to her family and culture. She offered to facilitate contact between the father and the child if a return was ordered. However, the father highlighted the child's current stability in England, where she was attending nursery and thriving.

In her judgment, Mrs Justice Judd concluded that it was not in the child's best interests to be summarily returned to China. She noted the clandestine nature of the child's removal and the lack of legal mechanisms in China to ensure the father's rights. The judge emphasised the need for a thorough examination of the child's welfare, considering the potential long-term implications of a summary return.

The court's decision underscored the importance of a comprehensive welfare assessment in international child abduction cases, particularly when dealing with non-Hague Convention countries. The judgment highlighted the complexities involved in balancing the child's immediate needs with their long-term welfare.

The case has significant implications for family law practitioners dealing with international child abduction cases, particularly those involving non-Hague Convention countries.