Professor Rob George KC, Edward Bennett and Mavis Amonoo-Acquah in Z (Abduction: Re-hearing After Set Aside), Re [2025] EWHC 3564 (Fam)
18th Feb 2026 | Cases
Professor Rob George KC led Edward Bennett, instructed by Goodman Ray Solicitors, for the Respondent mother and Mavis Amonoo-Acquah, instructed by RWK Goodman for the Applicant father, was led by Ruth Kirby KC of 4PB, in Z (Abduction: Re-hearing After Set Aside), Re [2025] EWHC 3564 (Fam); a re-hearing of father’s application for the return of a child to Turkey.
This was the Court’s third judgment concerning the father’s application for child Z’s summary return to Turkey under the 1980 Hague Convention. A return order was initially made in July 2025. That order was subsequently set aside in September following the mother’s application, and the matter was re-heard de novo. This judgment records the outcome of that re-hearing.
The mother relied on Article 13(b), asserting that Z’s return would expose her to a grave risk of harm. The Court accepted that there was credible evidence of domestic abuse and that, viewed cumulatively, the risk was grave. A central development between the July hearing and the re-hearing was the obtaining of expert evidence on Turkish law and protective measures. That evidence raised significant concerns about the enforceability of undertakings, the risk of criminal proceedings against the mother for child abduction, and uncertainty regarding her immigration status. The Court found that the mother’s fear of returning was genuine and that Z would likely face separation from her mother if they did return.
Given the limitations and uncertainty surrounding protective measures in Turkey, the Court concluded that the Article 13(b) defence was established. Exercising its discretion, the Court refused the return order.
