The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court decision ordering the return of a child to South Africa under the Hague Convention 1980, marking a significant outcome in a complex and highly sensitive international children matter.

Hughes Fowler Carruthers successfully represented the applicant mother, with the team comprising senior counsel Frances Hughes, partner Kate Brett and associate Rica Lee. Mark Jarman KC was instructed counsel. The mother applied for the child’s return following the wrongful retention of the child by his father who had previously issued proceedings in South Africa but later abandoned them because he was not confident in the outcome.

At first instance, in Re X (a Minor) (Hague Convention 1980, Article 13(b); Article 13(2)) [2026] EWHC 400 (Fam), the High Court considered defences under Article 13(b) (grave risk of harm) and Article 13(2) (the child’s objections). The court rejected the father’s case on grave risk, finding that the father’s case for such a defence did not gain any traction. The case therefore focussed on a detailed analysis of the strength and authenticity of child’s strongly expressed objections.

The court found that the child’s views had been so significantly influenced by the father over a number of years that his objections were neither independent nor authentic. The court described the relationship between the child and his father as “toxic” and “mutually unhealthy and interdependent” taking its toll on the child’s mental health and leading to the child’s relationship with his mother being ‘comprehensively dismantled’. In exercising its discretion, the court placed weight on the need to restore the child to their home and to protect their relationship with his mother and wider family.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the High Court had undertaken the required holistic balancing exercise and was entitled to reach its decision in the exercise of its discretion. It also reaffirmed that, while a child’s objections must be taken into account, they are not determinative.

The judgment addressed very serious welfare concerns arising from the child’s circumstances in England, including the harmful nature of the father-child relationship and the impact of ongoing litigation on the child’s emotional wellbeing. Against that backdrop, the court concluded that an expeditious return to South Africa was both appropriate and necessary.

The Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the return order reinforces the high threshold for Article 13 defences and emphasises that one of the principal objectives of the 1980 Hague Convention is to deter parents from seeking to take matters into their own hands, as the father in this case sought to do, and ensure the prompt return of children wrongfully retained or removed

This case highlights the English court’s careful approach to allegations of harm and to children’s expressed wishes, particularly where there is evidence of influence or manipulation and underlines the court’s willingness to scrutinise the broader factual matrix when determining the extent to which a child’s objections should carry determinative weight.

Hughes Fowler Carruthers continues to act in leading cross-border children cases, advising on complex jurisdictional disputes and Hague Convention proceedings involving high-value and sensitive family dynamics.

The Court of Appeal judgment in Re X (A Child) [2026] EWCA Civ 518 can be found here.