Re MG (A Child): High Court orders return to Norway despite father's mental health evidence

A deputy High Court judge has ordered the summary return of a baby girl to Norway under the 1980 Hague Convention, ruling that the father's mental health difficulties and concerns about the mother's capacity did not amount to a grave risk of harm.

In Re MG (A Child) (Abduction: Norway: Art 13b: Mental Health) [2026] EWHC 2486 (Fam), David Rees KC accepted that a return carried some risk for the child but found that it fell short of the high threshold set by Article 13(b).

The child, a dual Norwegian and British national, was born in Norway in late 2025. The family travelled to England in May 2026 for what was agreed to be a temporary visit, with a return planned for 22 June. After the parents' relationship deteriorated, the mother returned to Norway alone. The father and child did not follow, and the mother issued Convention proceedings in July. It was common ground that the child had been wrongfully retained and was habitually resident in Norway.

The father, represented by Ruth Kirby KC, relied on a report from a consultant forensic psychiatrist. It described a condition that was episodic and sensitive to stress, and concluded that his mental health would deteriorate in Norway, where he does not speak the language and would lack day-to-day family support. At some point, the report said, he would probably have to hand the child's care to the mother. He also pointed to concerns about the mother's ability to care for the child alone, drawn from the Norwegian child welfare authority's files. He said he would return with the child if ordered. Michael Gration KC, for the mother, put forward alternative return arrangements, including the child travelling with the mother alone.

Applying Re E, Re IG and the Court of Appeal's guidance in Re B (A Child) (Abduction: Article 13(b): Mental Health) [2024] EWCA Civ 1595, the judge framed the question as what was likely to happen on a return, and whether the effect on the father's health was enough to expose the child to grave risk. He noted the distinction drawn in Re B between a significant risk of deterioration and a risk of significant deterioration.

He declined to restructure the order so that the child returned in the mother's care, saying it would be inappropriate to remove her from a father willing to return with her. Unchallenged Norwegian immigration evidence indicated that the father would probably be able to enter and remain during the proceedings, would have legal aid, access to emergency and probably general healthcare, and a right to work. The mother offered accommodation funds of up to £3,200 for about two months, supplemented by a further sum from the maternal grandparents, making roughly 53,000 Norwegian krone in total. The judge also noted that the father had dealt with Norwegian child welfare officials throughout the year despite the language barrier, and could join his English support group online.

The psychiatrist could not quantify the likely deterioration or its timing, which the judge said made the risk less serious than if it were imminent. Nor did he accept that separation from the father would of itself cause grave harm, given that both parents had cared for the child.

On the mother, the judge acknowledged the child welfare authority's second report, which expressed concern about her functioning during a crisis following a bereavement and separation from the child. That report, however, was not a formal assessment. The mother was living with her own parents, had sought help from agencies and a psychologist, and the acute crisis had likely passed. The court was entitled to assume Norwegian authorities were as adept at protecting children as those in England, and the file showed they had engaged closely with the family.

Both risks were found to carry an element of remoteness, with a clear safety net available, and any consequences for the child were likely to be limited. The father had not made out the exception on the balance of probabilities. The mother's protective measures and soft landing provisions are to be reflected as undertakings, and the Norwegian authority is to be notified of the decision in advance and given a translation of the judgement and the psychiatric report.