Visit JCPCUKSC/2026/0074
•
FAMILY
In the Petition of DM No 1
Case summary
Case ID
UKSC/2026/0074
Parties
Appellant(s)
H
Respondent(s)
DM
SM
Intervener(s)
Reunite International Child Abduction Centre (Reunite)
The International Centre for Family Law, Policy and Practice
International Academy of Family Lawyers
Issue
Can the views of a child be taken into account when considering whether the defence under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Convention”) is made out? Were the Inner House correct to override the Outer House’s decision as to whether the child concerned should be returned?
Facts
This appeal concerns two children, B, who is 8 years old, and H, who is now 15 years old. Their parents are married and are British citizens but since 2014, the family had lived together in Florida, USA. In July 2025, the family travelled from Florida to the United Kingdom for a three-week holiday. H had understood that the family would return to Florida at the end of this holiday. The mother decided not to return to Florida and told H of this development. The father, DM, did not consent to both children staying in the United Kingdom. In August 2025, the mother brought proceedings in Peterhead Sheriff Court, Scotland and obtained an interdict that prohibited the father from removing B and H from her care and control and from the United Kingdom. The father, DM, sought an order under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, which incorporates the Convention, for return of the children from Scotland to Florida on the basis that the children were wrongfully retained in Scotland. The Convention is an international agreement which aims to secure the “prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State”. Article 13(b) of the Convention provides a defence to removal and allows a court to refuse to order the return of a child if the person opposing the return establishes that “there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation”. Even if the defence under Article 13(b) is made out, the court can still decide to order that the child be returned. The mother sought to rely on Article 13(b) of the Convention to oppose DM’s application for removal of the children from the United Kingdom. H provided their view on the matter, indicating that H wished to return to Florida. The Outer House of the Court of Session accepted the mother’s claim in respect of B, but rejected the mother’s claim concerning H ordering that H alone should be returned to Florida. Both the mother and father appealed this decision to the Inner House of the Court of Session. H was separately represented throughout the proceedings. The Extra Division of the Inner House held that the Lord Ordinary erred in taking into account H’s views when assessing if Article 13(b) of the Convention applied. The Inner House allowed the mother’s appeal and held that the Lord Ordinary should not have ordered the return of H.
Date of issue
3 June 2026
Case origin
PTA
Linked cases
Legal Issue
Appeal
Justices
Hearing dates
Full hearing
Start date
2 July 2026
End date
2 July 2026
Additional hearing
Start date
8 July 2026
End date
8 July 2026
Additional hearing panel
Justices
Watch hearings
2 July 2026 - Morning session
2 July 2026 - Afternoon session
8 July 2026 - Morning session
All videos on this page are recorded and transmitted in line with the Court's terms of use. These can be found here. Please Note: Every effort is being made to provide a satisfactory streaming service of the Supreme Court judgments and hearings. However, these services may be subject to technical issues or delay, in which case we will attempt to resolve them as soon as possible.
Permission to Appeal
Justices
Permission to Appeal decision date
10 June 2026
Permission to Appeal decision
Granted in part
Previous proceedings
Change log
Last updated 12 June 2026