1.1   This is a second application to this Court by a father for the return of two children, called Rachel and Isobel for the purposes of both judgments. The girls are already the subject of family law proceedings in Sweden. The defences of consent, acquiescence and grave risk are raised. The Court is also asked to consider habitual residence and the views of the children, who object to returning to Sweden.
1.4   The views of the children have been ascertained again. The primary message reported by the Assessor in respect of Rachel is as follows: "she believed that neither of her parents were listening to her plight and, instead, spent their time arguing" . Rachel is correct. She refers again to self-harming. As outlined in the first judgment, continuing care and professional help will be needed for Rachel. This had been in place at her home in Sweden, where her medical, educational, and social welfare records are kept and where trained professionals are familiar with the family.
1.5   The Respondent submitted that both children were receiving psychological help here, but she made no averment to this effect and no reports were provided to the Court. The Applicant did not put this in issue; he accepts that both children are receiving some care here. However, he is not aware of the identity or the credentials of the counsellors in question, if they have any, nor is the Court. The Assessor referred specifically to concerns about the mental health of the children.
1.14           It is important to the children that they have access to both parents and no court can order that families live in a particular town or country. Here, a town had been agreed upon and the children registered in schools there. The Respondent changed her mind and began to argue for settlement in a second town. This blocked the move, despite all members of the family apparently wanting to return here.
1.15           The Respondent's case in this application was based, largely, on arguments appropriate to a welfare-based custody hearing, not a Hague Convention case. Further, her conduct was such that in any other circumstances, I would not hesitate to return the children immediately. She had already been the subject of a similar order and sought to repeat, less than a year later, exactly the wrongdoing she had already perpetrated, leading to further upheaval and conflict in the girls' lives.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.