The Family Division of the High Court recently refused an application for a 13-year-old girl’s summary return to the USA, in a decision in which the girl’s own objections to returning were a key consideration.

The girl’s American mother and British father had married in 2010 and moved to England shortly afterwards. The girl was born the following year. In 2015, her parents having separated, the girl moved with her mother to the USA.

Since 2020 she had spent her school summer holidays with her father in England. She was due to return to the USA in August 2024, but failed to do so. Her mother brought an application for her summary return under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 and the 1980 Hague Convention. Her father resisted the application.

Her father accepted that he had wrongfully retained the girl in England, in contravention of her mother’s custody rights, but claimed that she objected to returning and that she had reached an age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to take account of her views. He also argued that there was a grave risk that her return would expose her to physical or psychological harm or place her in an intolerable situation.

The Court heard evidence from a CAFCASS officer that the girl had said she would only return to the USA if she was able to live with her grandparents, to which her mother had agreed. She described the area they lived in in the USA as ‘isolated’, and said her first choice would be to stay in England and live with her father. The girl had subsequently said that she had settled better into her new school in England and really did not want to return to the USA.

The Court found that it was manifest that the girl objected to returning to live with her mother and that she was of an age and maturity where that needed to be taken into account. Her objections were strong and persistent, and were authentically her own. She was very unhappy with her isolation in the USA. The Court noted that in general terms it is better for a child to be with a parent, which would not be the case if she returned to the USA.

The Court did not consider that returning her to the USA would expose her to a grave risk of harm or put her in an intolerable situation. Having found that the girl objected to returning, however, the Court refused the application in the exercise of its discretion.