In the petition of DM [2026] UKSC 32 concerned the Art 13(b) defence, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980. Ruling unanimously last week, the court found the Inner House of the Court of Session had been wrong to exclude the 14-year-old’s views when assessing the case.
Nevertheless, the court affirmed the Inner House’s order not to return the teenage boy, H, to Florida from Scotland. In accordance with the Art 13(b) defence, it found there was a grave risk his return would expose him to psychological harm he could not reasonably be expected to tolerate.
Lords Stephens and Snowden, giving the main judgment, said: ‘H’s views ought to have been taken into account.
‘Of course, H’s views are not determinative, and it is for the court to determine what, if any, weight to attach to them.’
They said additional factors pointing against return had to be considered cumulatively, including a ‘peripatetic lifestyle’ and a risk of psychological harm by worrying about his mother’s mental health.
Referring to the Lord Ordinary’s ruling in the Outer House that the boy could return to Florida, Lords Stephens and Snowden said the evidence did not bear the weight attached. First, the weight to be attached depended on the extent to which they were authentically H’s own views, as to which the Lord Ordinary had come to no conclusion. Secondly, the evidence did not address the critical risk that had been identified.
Carolina Marín Predreño, partner at Dawson Cornwell, who acted for the intervener Reunite, said: ‘For too long, there has been a danger that Hague Convention proceedings become disputes conducted principally through the evidence of parents about their child.
‘This judgment is an important step towards putting the child back at the centre of the analysis. Listening to a child does not mean allowing the child to decide the outcome. The task is to hear the child, understand what lies behind their views and assess those views carefully alongside all the other evidence.’
