Media sweep: 27 September 2026
A child’s views can now be relevant when a court assesses an Article 13(b) “grave risk” defence under the 1980 Hague Convention.
That is the central message from the Supreme Court’s decision in In the Petition of DM [2026] UKSC 32.
But the decision does not turn Hague Convention proceedings into a full welfare hearing. It does not mean that a child decides where they will live. And it does not mean that a child’s stated wishes automatically defeat an application for return.
The judgment clarifies an important point: where the court is assessing whether return would expose a child to serious psychological harm or an intolerable situation, the child’s own experience and views may form part of that assessment.
For fathers facing an international relocation or abduction dispute, understanding this distinction is vital.
Fathers United. Rights Respected. Every Dad Matters.
What is the 1980 Hague Convention?
The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is designed to deal with the wrongful removal or retention of a child across international borders.
Its basic purpose is not to decide which parent is the better parent.
Instead, it aims to:
- secure the prompt return of a child to the country where they were habitually resident;
- discourage one parent from changing the child’s country of residence without proper agreement or legal authority; and
- ensure that the courts in the child’s home country decide the substantive welfare and child arrangements issues.
The Convention can apply where a child has been taken from their usual country of residence or kept in another country without the required consent.
The UK Government’s international parental child abduction guidance explains the practical steps available to parents, including contacting the relevant Central Authority and seeking specialist legal advice.
What does Article 13(b) mean?
Article 13(b) provides an exception to the general return principle.
A court may refuse to order return where the person opposing return establishes:
“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.”
This is a high threshold. The risk must be serious enough to be described as “grave”. The assessment is focused on the child and the circumstances they would face on return.
The court is not simply deciding whether a parent has behaved badly. It is asking whether return itself would create a sufficiently serious risk of harm or an intolerable situation.
The person opposing return generally carries the burden of establishing the Article 13(b) defence.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
In In the Petition of DM [2026] UKSC 32, the Supreme Court held that a child’s views can be taken into account when assessing whether Article 13(b) is established.
That means the court may consider evidence about:
- how the child understands the proposed return;
- the child’s experience of the relevant circumstances;
- the child’s fears, concerns or expectations;
- the child’s age and level of understanding; and
- whether the child’s views are genuinely their own or have been influenced by an adult.
The Court made clear that a child should generally have an opportunity to be heard where that is appropriate, having regard to their age and maturity.
However, being heard is not the same as deciding the outcome.
A child’s views are not determinative. The court decides what weight, if any, should be given to them.
That weight may be affected by the reliability and authenticity of the views, the way they were obtained, the child’s understanding of the issues, and whether the views address the particular risk identified under Article 13(b).
This is not a full welfare hearing
This point cannot be overstated.
Hague proceedings are deliberately summary in nature. They are intended to resolve the return question quickly, not to conduct a detailed investigation into every aspect of a child’s long-term life.
The court is usually not deciding:
- which parent should have primary care in the long term;
- the final pattern of contact;
- the child’s complete educational arrangements;
- all disputed allegations between the parents; or
- the overall welfare outcome under domestic child arrangements law.
Those matters normally belong to the courts in the child’s country of habitual residence, subject to the particular facts and jurisdictional rules.
The Hague court is asking a narrower question:
Should this child be returned, or has the opposing parent established an Article 13(b) grave risk that justifies refusing summary return?
The child’s views may assist with that question. They do not transform the proceedings into a final welfare determination.
Chart-friendly comparison: two different legal exercises
| Hague Article 13(b) assessment | Full welfare determination |
|---|---|
| Focuses on whether return would create a grave risk of physical or psychological harm, or an intolerable situation | Focuses broadly on the child’s best interests and long-term welfare |
| Usually takes place through a summary process | Usually involves a more extensive evidential and welfare inquiry |
| Considers the circumstances of the proposed return | Considers future living arrangements, care, education and relationships |
| May consider protective measures and undertakings | Can make detailed, long-term child arrangements orders |
| May take account of the child’s views where appropriate | Gives the child’s wishes and feelings weight within the wider welfare framework |
| Does not generally decide which parent is the better parent | May require a detailed assessment of each parent’s care and parenting capacity |
| The central question is return or no return | The central question is what arrangements best serve the child’s welfare |
The return question and the long-term child arrangements question must be kept separate.
That separation protects the integrity of the Convention process while ensuring that genuine grave risks are not ignored.
Why F v M matters: undertakings are not a universal answer
The decision in F v M [2026] EWHC 2371 (Fam) provides an important contrast.
In that case, undertakings and proposed protective measures were offered in an attempt to address the alleged grave risk. The court concluded that those measures did not sufficiently reduce the risk identified.
The result is a practical warning:
Protective undertakings do not automatically defeat an Article 13(b) defence.
An undertaking is a promise given to the court. Depending on the circumstances, it may address issues such as accommodation, financial support, non-contact, supervision or cooperation with local authorities.
But the court must examine whether the proposed safeguards are:
- clear;
- realistic;
- capable of enforcement;
- available immediately;
- supported by the legal system in the country of habitual residence; and
- genuinely capable of reducing the particular risk alleged.
A broad promise that “everything will be fine” will rarely be enough where the alleged harm is serious.
The court must assess the facts carefully. In some cases, effective protective measures may remove the grave risk. In others, they may not. F v M shows that undertakings cannot be treated as a standard solution.
What evidence may matter after DM?
Whether you are a father seeking the return of a child or a father opposing return, the evidence should be focused and organised.
Relevant material may include:
1. Evidence of the alleged risk
This could include records, messages, professional evidence, police documentation, medical information or other material that explains the alleged physical or psychological danger.
The court must focus on the risk to the child on return, not simply on adult conflict.
2. Evidence about protective measures
If return is sought, identify practical safeguards. Explain who would provide them, how they would operate and how they could be enforced.
If return is opposed, test whether those safeguards are actually available and whether they address the specific risk.
3. The child’s age and understanding
The court will consider whether it is appropriate for the child to express views and how much weight those views should receive.
There is no obligation on a child to give a view. A child should not be pressured to support either parent.
4. The child’s views
Following DM, the child’s views may be relevant to the Article 13(b) assessment.
But the court will consider whether the views are authentic, informed and connected to the specific risk being assessed. A general wish to return may not address a separate risk of serious psychological harm.
5. The home country’s protective framework
Documented evidence about the legal and safeguarding framework in the country of habitual residence can be important.
This may include:
- available protective orders;
- emergency safeguarding procedures;
- access to courts and police;
- recognition and enforcement of undertakings;
- support services; and
- the practical ability of a parent to obtain protection quickly.
Assertions are weaker than evidence. If relying on the home country’s legal protections, show how they work in practice.
Practical guidance for fathers
If you are the left-behind father
Do not assume that the Hague case will decide the entire parenting dispute.
Your evidence should address:
- the child’s habitual residence;
- the wrongful removal or retention;
- parental responsibility and consent;
- why Article 13(b) is not established;
- the protective framework available after return; and
- why proposed undertakings are realistic and enforceable.
Avoid turning the case into a long account of every relationship grievance. Stay focused on the Convention tests.
If you are the taking parent opposing return
You must identify the grave risk clearly and support it with evidence.
Explain:
- what would happen on return;
- why the harm would be grave;
- why the situation would be intolerable for this child;
- why proposed safeguards would not remove the risk; and
- how the child’s views are relevant without asking the court to conduct a full welfare hearing.
Do not place pressure on the child to produce evidence. The child’s voice must be heard safely and independently.
Act quickly: Hague timelines are short
International abduction proceedings move quickly. Delay can affect evidence, the child’s circumstances and the court’s ability to provide effective protection.
Early specialist advice can help you:
- identify the correct jurisdiction;
- preserve relevant documents and messages;
- prepare a focused chronology;
- respond to allegations;
- assess possible undertakings;
- contact the appropriate Central Authority; and
- distinguish the Hague return case from longer-term child arrangements proceedings.
Our guide to UK family court hearings explains why preparation and clear evidence matter in court proceedings.
Do not wait until a hearing date is close.
The message for fathers
The Supreme Court’s ruling in DM is an important recognition that children are not merely the subject of litigation between adults.
Their views may matter when the court assesses grave risk.
But the judgment preserves the vital distinction between hearing a child and handing the child responsibility for the outcome. The court must still conduct an objective, evidence-led assessment under Article 13(b).
And F v M reinforces that protective undertakings must be genuine, practical and effective. They are not a universal answer.
If you are dealing with an international child abduction dispute, seek specialist advice urgently. Organise the evidence. Keep the focus on the legal test. Protect your child from adult conflict wherever possible.
Join us in championing informed, responsible and equal parenting. Fathers United. Rights Respected. Every Dad Matters.
Sources
- Supreme Court: In the Petition of DM [2026] UKSC 32
- Today’s Family Lawyer: Supreme Court rules child’s views can be taken into account in Hague defence
- GOV.UK: International parental child abduction
General information disclaimer: This article is for general information and advocacy purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor–client relationship. It is written primarily with England and Wales in mind. International child abduction law and court procedures differ in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the application of the Hague Convention may depend on the countries involved. Fathers should obtain urgent advice from a suitably qualified family law professional with relevant international child abduction experience. This article anonymises proceedings and does not identify any protected party, child or family.