High Court Refuses Return of Child to Turkey due to Grave Risk of Harm

A father’s application to secure the return of his 10-year-old child to Turkey under the 1980 Hague Convention has been rejected by the High Court after it found that a return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm and an intolerable situation.

The application followed the mother’s removal of the child to England. It was accepted that Turkey was the child’s state of habitual residence and that the removal was wrongful. As less than a year had passed since the removal, the court was required to order the child’s immediate return unless one of the Convention’s exceptions applied.

This was the court’s third judgment in the proceedings. A return order had previously been made but was later set aside after the mother made clear that she would not return to Turkey, even if that meant the child returning alone. The case was therefore re-heard.

Grave Risk Defence under The Hague Convention

The only defence pursued by the mother was that returning the child would expose her to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or place her in an intolerable situation. The court assessed the risks cumulatively.

The judge said there was nothing in the updated evidence to displace the court’s earlier conclusion that allegations of domestic abuse were of sufficient detail and substance to give rise to a grave risk of harm. Significant weight was also placed on the mother’s refusal to return to Turkey, which the court found to be genuine rather than tactical, and on the likely separation of the child from her primary carer if a return were ordered.

Risks Considered by the Court

Further risks were identified. Expert evidence raised a realistic possibility that the mother could face arrest and criminal prosecution for child abduction if she returned to Turkey, with the prospect of imprisonment. The court also found uncertainty around the mother’s immigration status, noting that she could not assume she would be permitted to remain in Turkey for the duration of potentially lengthy custody and divorce proceedings.

The court considered whether protective measures could adequately address the risks. The father offered a range of undertakings, including not pursuing criminal proceedings, vacating the family home and providing financial support. However, expert evidence on Turkish law led the court to conclude that the undertakings were unlikely to be reliably effective or enforceable, and that some risks lay outside the father’s control.

Why the High Court refused the Return Order

Taking the position as a whole, the court found that the defence was established and declined to exercise its discretion to order a return. The judge concluded that returning the child would expose her to a grave risk of harm and would be contrary to her welfare.

The father’s application for a return order was therefore refused.

Specialist advice on International Child Abduction Cases

Cases involving international child abduction and the Hague Convention are complex, fast-moving and highly fact-sensitive. As this decision shows, while the Convention generally requires the prompt return of children, the “grave risk” defence can succeed where there is clear and compelling evidence of harm, particularly in situations involving domestic abuse, legal uncertainty abroad, or the potential separation from a primary carer.

Our experienced family law team can on Hague Convention applications, wrongful removal claims and defences based on grave risk or intolerable situations. If you are dealing with an international child dispute or need urgent advice, contact our family solicitors today for clear, practical guidance tailored to your circumstances.

Case Details
Case: Re Z (Abduction: Re-hearing After Set Aside)
Neutral Citation: [2025] EWHC 3564 (Fam)
Court: High Court (Family Division)
Judge: Ms Justice Harris

About the Author

Victoria is an Associate Solicitor in Machins’ Family Law team, based in Luton and Berkhamsted. She advises on all aspects of family law, with particular experience in private children matters and divorce and financial proceedings. Clients value her empathetic, pragmatic approach and focus on achieving effective, cost‑efficient outcomes.