Client Secures High Court Victory in International Child Abduction Case (9 March 2026)

Duncan Lewis Solicitors has successfully represented the Respondent, RA, in a significant High Court Family Division judgment concerning the summary return of a child to Canada under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The case raises important issues regarding the habitual residence of very young children, the doctrine of acquiescence, and the rights of primary carers who have fled difficult and abusive domestic circumstances.

A British mother, having travelled to England with her two-year-old son J in December 2022 following the breakdown of her marriage and serious allegations of domestic abuse, successfully resisted an application by the Canadian father for J's summary return to Canada. Paul Hepher, instructed by Duncan Lewis, advanced the case on three grounds: that J had become habitually resident in England by the date of the alleged wrongful retention; that the father had acquiesced in J's continued stay in England; and that a return would expose J to a grave risk of harm.

The Honourable Mr Justice Cobb, sitting in the Family Division of the High Court, found comprehensively in the mother's favour.

The Proceedings

The father issued his application under the 1980 Hague Convention on 3 October 2023, seeking the summary return of J, born February 2021, to Canada. The mother opposed the application on all grounds. The matter was heard over two days on 4 and 5 December 2023, with Mr Justice Cobb taking the unusual step of hearing short oral evidence from both parties on two discrete factual issues: the father's knowledge of the mother's application for child benefit in England, and the circumstances in which the father had acquired a 25% interest in his parents' Canadian property in April 2023, a fact the mother had been entirely unaware of until the eve of the hearing.

The parties had married in England in 2019 and relocated to Canada in January 2020, where J was born in February 2021. The family lived throughout with the paternal grandparents in Ontario. The mother alleged repeated incidents of domestic abuse, including physical assaults on at least three occasions, as well as coercive and emotional abuse. Following a significant incident on 22 December 2022, it was agreed that the mother and J would travel to England. The father provided a statutory declaration stating they were travelling "for the Christmas holidays." The mother and J departed on 23 December 2022 on a one-way ticket.

By early February 2023, the mother had resigned from her Canadian employment, J had been enrolled in nursery in England, and the mother had applied for child benefit, all with the father's knowledge. In the months that followed, the father assisted the mother in closing their joint Canadian bank account, arranged for J's belongings and toys to be shipped to England, and wrote to the mother confirming he was planning to visit her and J in England in August 2023. On 19 April 2023 he wrote: "I want to know what's the future and how often I can see him if u r not coming back." On 20 May 2023, following a heated exchange, he sent a message to the maternal grandmother telling her to "tell her to be there forever." It was following this exchange that the father subsequently instructed lawyers and sought J's return.

Habitual Residence

The court found that by 20 May 2023, the date assessed as the point of alleged wrongful retention, J had achieved a sufficient degree of integration into life in England for his habitual residence to have changed from Canada. The judge had regard to J's prior familiarity with England from an extended visit between October 2021 and January 2022, his stable residence at the maternal family home, his enrolment in nursery and a range of community activities, his registration with a GP and dentist, his developing relationships with extended maternal family, and the mother's own full settlement back into English life. On this basis alone, the application failed.

Acquiescence

The court went further, finding that even if J's habitual residence had remained in Canada, the father had by the time of the alleged wrongful retention subjectively acquiesced in J remaining in England. Mr Justice Cobb identified a series of contemporaneous words and actions which, taken together, demonstrated the father's acceptance of the position: his agreement to the mother claiming child benefit in England, his failure to object to J's nursery enrolment, his assistance in closing the joint Canadian bank account, his arrangements to ship J's belongings to England, his letter of 1 March 2023 expressing his intention to visit in the summer or autumn, and his own written acknowledgement that he accepted J may not be returning. In the alternative, the court found that the father's words and conduct had clearly and unequivocally led the mother to believe he was not asserting his right to J's summary return, engaging the exceptional acquiescence principle drawn from Re H and Others (Minors) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1998] AC 72.

Representation and Outcome

Duncan Lewis represented the mother, with Paul Hepher of counsel instructed to appear at the two-day hearing.

The application for J's summary return to Canada was dismissed in its entirety. The court confirmed that domestic Children Act 1989 proceedings, which had rightly been stayed pending the outcome of this application, could now proceed with expedition in the Family Court in England, with a view to placing the father's time with J on a secure footing.

Comment

This case serves as an important note that the 1980 Hague Convention, whilst a vital instrument for the swift return of wrongfully abducted children, is not a mechanism that operates in isolation from the realities of a child's life. Where a child has genuinely integrated into a new environment, and where the conduct of the left-behind parent tells a different story from the one subsequently advanced before the court, the English courts will examine the evidence with care and rigour.

It further underscores the importance of detailed, evidence-based advocacy in international family law proceedings, and the need for vulnerable clients facing such applications to have access to experienced legal representation.

Julie McNamara – Director, Family Department (Birmingham)

This matter was handled by Julie McNamara, Director in the Family Department at Duncan Lewis Solicitors' Birmingham office. Julie is a Legal 500-ranked solicitor with nine years at the firm, accredited by Resolution as a specialist in both international child abduction and domestic abuse. She has extensive experience in private children matters, divorce, financial disputes, and domestic abuse proceedings, and is also a fully trained Mediator.

Rabia Khan – Solicitor, Family Department (Birmingham)

Rabia Khan is a Solicitor in the Family Department at Duncan Lewis Solicitors' Birmingham office. Having recently qualified after completing her training with the firm, Rabia advises clients across a broad range of family law matters including child arrangements, divorce and financial settlements, and protective orders. She is known for her empathetic and detail-focused approach to supporting clients through complex and emotionally sensitive cases.

About Duncan Lewis Solicitors

Duncan Lewis is a leading legal aid and human rights firm with offices across England and Wales, recognised for its expertise across a broad range of practice areas including family law. The firm has an established reputation for representing vulnerable clients in complex and high-stakes proceedings, including international child abduction cases before the High Court.