Reported case: M v F (Art 13 Thresholds Not Met) [2025] EWHC 2629 (Fam)
Family Division, 17th October 2025, Mr Justice MacDonald
Natalie Friday and Flavia Cretu successfully represented the applicant mother in this reported case involving an application by the mother under the 1980 Hague Convention (via the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985) for the return of two children, Y (born 2017) and Z (born 2020), from the United Kingdom to Brazil.
The mother, of Yemeni heritage and resident in Brazil, held custody under a Saudi court order of May 2023, confirmed on appeal. The father, Yemeni and based in the United States, had previously abducted the children from Saudi Arabia to Brazil without consent. On 3 June 2024, the paternal grandmother wrongfully removed the children from Brazil to the UK, where she and the paternal aunt were seeking asylum or protection.
The main issues were:
- Whether Y’s opposition to returning met the Article 13(a) child’s objection threshold;
- Whether a return would expose the children to a grave risk of harm or intolerability under Article 13(b); and
- Whether, given pending asylum claims, the court could make interim protective measures under Article 11 of the 1996 Hague Convention pending the children’s return to Brazil.
The court held that the removal from Brazil was wrongful and that a return order should be made under Article 12 of the 1980 Convention. On the Article 13(a) defence, Y (aged 8) expressed a wish to remain in the UK, but her views were treated as preferences rather than a true objection as they lacked the strength, conviction, and independence required, and appeared to have been influenced by the paternal family. On the Article 13(b) defence, the respondents failed to show any specific or credible evidence of grave risk or intolerable circumstances. It was held that their allegations were too vague to meet the threshold. Accordingly, none of the exceptions to return applied.
However, because the children’s asylum and immigration matters were still pending, the court accepted that return could not yet be implemented. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 11 of the 1996 Convention, MacDonald J ordered interim protective measures, namely that the children were to remain in the mother’s care in the UK, and the paternal relatives were prohibited from removing them or interfering with her care pending their return.
The judgment emphasised that a child’s objection under Article 13(a) is a narrow gateway: a strong preference to stay is insufficient unless it is an authentically held objection with maturity and reasoning. It also reaffirmed that courts may discount alleged risks under Article 13(b) where evidence is lacking, without a need for extensive fact-finding. The case further demonstrates how the 1996 Hague Convention can be used to maintain interim protective arrangements where immigration processes delay the execution of a return order.
Read full judgment below: