The Family Division of the High Court has refused a mother’s application for an order that her three children should be returned from England to Lithuania.
The mother and father were both Lithuanian nationals who had met and begun a relationship in the UK, where the children were born. Their relationship broke down in 2023, and they agreed that the children would live with their mother in Lithuania. This agreement was incorporated into a settlement that was approved by the Lithuanian court in March 2024.
In June 2024, the children came back to England: the mother stated that this was for the summer holidays, while the father claimed that it had been agreed that the children would come to England to live with him. The mother subsequently applied to the Court under the 1980 Hague Convention for an order for the children’s return to Lithuania.
The Court noted evidence from a CAFCASS officer that the oldest child, aged nine, had spoken very positively of her home and school in England. She had also spoken about her mother drinking, neglecting her and her sisters and being physically abusive. In a letter she had prepared for the Court, she said that she would feel ‘depressed, angry, sad and afraid’ if she had to go to Lithuania.
The Court was satisfied that the mother had not consented to the children being removed to live in England and had only agreed that they should come here for the summer holidays. Turning to the oldest child’s views, the Court observed that many of her expressed wishes related to not wanting to live with her mother. However, it concluded that her objection was also to going back to Lithuania, and that it was an objection rather than a just a preference. In the Court’s judgment, she had attained an age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to take her views into account.
The allegations she had made as to what had happened in the care of her mother were detailed and substantial. If those assertions were true, there was a grave risk that a return to their mother’s care would expose the children to physical and/or psychological harm and place them in an intolerable situation. The Court did not consider that protective measures that had been proposed were sufficient to ameliorate that risk.
The Court bore in mind that the object of the Convention is to secure the prompt return of wrongfully removed children to the state of their habitual residence, and to respect rights of custody and access. The fact that the children had been retained when they were on holiday was a particularly powerful factor in favour of ordering a return.
However, the oldest child had given very clear and strong views. She had lived in England for most of her life, and a move back to Lithuania would entail considerable disruption. In all the circumstances, the Court concluded that it should exercise its discretion and refuse to order a return. The Court also declined to order the return of the younger children, as this would leave them particularly vulnerable and would separate them from their older sister.