Assumption: "(Hague Convention) A child's views only matter for the separate "child's objections" defence, not for deciding whether there's a grave risk under Article 13(b)."
1 min readThis content reflects observational insights and lived community experiences. It does not constitute legal advice — always consult a qualified professional for your specific circumstances.
What People Expect
A parent or advocate may assume a child's views only matter for the separate "child's objections" defence under the Hague Convention, and have no bearing on whether a grave risk exists under Article 13(b).
Court Reality
The Supreme Court has confirmed a child's own views and account of their situation can be directly relevant to assessing whether a grave risk exists under Article 13(b) itself, not only through the separate objections route. Leaving a child's views out of that risk assessment is a legal error.
Download the card and post it on Facebook, LinkedIn, or wherever you're active. Every share helps another litigant find this before their hearing.
The Gap?
"(Hague Convention) A child's views only matter for the separate "child's objections" defence, not for deciding whether there's a grave risk under Article 13(b)."
Court Reality
The Supreme Court has confirmed a child's own views and account of their situation can be directly relevant to assessing whether a grave risk exists under Article 13(b) itself, not only through the separate objections route.
Seen a gap between what you thought and the reality? Share yours.
familycourtbridge.org
Navigating court alone?
A McKenzie Friend can help you make sense of this in the context of your own case.
Find your supportCookie Consent
We use essential cookies only, such as remembering this choice and keeping you signed in if you create an account. No tracking or analytics cookies are used.