Z (A Child) (Retention from Hong Kong: Child’s Objections), Re

These are proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. They concern an eleven year old boy to whom I shall refer as ‘Z’. The applicant, Z’s mother, applies for him to be returned to Hong Kong, where he has lived with her since he was six months old. The respondent to the application is Z’s maternal grandmother.

I am grateful to Mr Edwards and to Ms Khan for their very helpful written and oral submissions. Ms Khan has generously acted on behalf of the grandmother pro bono.

Z’s father is described as having mental health difficulties. He apparently lives in mainland Europe and has no involvement in Z’s life. He is not a party to these proceedings but has been made aware of them. In 2019 the Hong Kong court made an order for sole custody in the mother’s favour.

In June 2025 the mother experienced a crisis which compromised her ability to care safely for her son. Z made contact with his maternal grandmother who had travelled to Hong Kong as a result of her concern for his welfare. The mother agreed that Z could stay with his grandmother in England over the summer. She did not agree that this should be a permanent move. Her expectation was that Z would be returned to Hong Kong, in time to start his next school year. This did not occur.

The grandmother’s failure to return Z to Hong Kong was undoubtedly a wrongful retention for the purposes of Art 3 of the 1980 Hague Convention. It follows that, pursuant to Art 12, the court is obliged to order the child’s return forthwith unless the grandmother is able to establish one or more of the exceptions in Art 13.

The grandmother’s evidence is that the mother has a long history of substance misuse which dates back to her teenage years. She is alleged mainly to have abused alcohol, but also drugs including prescription drugs. The grandmother also says that the mother has been leading a very unstable life in Hong Kong. On her case, the mother has engaged in prostitution and for several years was involved in an unsuitable relationship with a man known to Z as ‘CJ’. He has a criminal history and has spent time in prison. The grandmother’s case is that Z has suffered significant emotional and psychological harm as consequences of the mother’s lifestyle. She wants her daughter to achieve abstinence from alcohol and drugs and to be well enough to care for Z. At the moment, she contends that the risks of returning her grandchild to her daughter’s care are simply too high. Z moreover objects to that course; he loves his mother but does not want to live with her until she is well enough to care safely for him.

The grandmother provides a degree of detail about the impact which the mother’s substance misuse has had on Z. When he was three months old the mother and Z’s father spent an afternoon drinking in a pub allowing Z to become badly sunburned. The incident led to both of them being arrested and cautioned.

The grandmother says that more recently there have been occasions when Z has been unable to get into the flat where he lived as his mother was either absent from home or had got drunk and passed out. Since CJ was released from prison in 2023, the grandmother says that his relationship with the mother has been volatile; the two of them were constantly fighting, the main trigger for the fights being the mother’s drinking and use of drugs. According to Z, CJ’s name for the mother, as recorded in his mobile telephone, was ‘slut’.

In February 2025 the grandmother flew to Hong Kong after receiving reports from one of the mother’s friends about her escalating behaviour. While she was there, she says that she witnessed the mother’s heavy drinking and aggressive outbursts. One evening the mother stayed out late drinking in a bar while Z was with her. The grandmother later learned that after dropping Z home, the mother went out again eventually returning in a drunk and aggressive state some hours later. The following morning the grandmother met the mother who was looking dishevelled and not wearing underwear. She claims that the mother told her that she had been having sex for money.

According to the grandmother, on 13 May 2025 Z called her in some distress asking her how to clean up vomit. He had been sick and told by his mother to clear it up. What had caused him to vomit was seeing his mother lying drunk and naked on the floor attempting to eat ham. On another occasion Z told his grandmother that he had taken himself to football practice as his mother was too drunk to do so; she had been lying on the floor saying that she wanted to die.

On 19 June 2025, as a result of her concerns about Z, the grandmother flew once again to Hong Kong. The mother had become unable to afford the rent on her flat and was having to move out. On 23 June 2025 Z called his grandmother to say that his mother was drunk and he was feeling afraid. The grandmother went to the flat and encountered the mother in state of inebriation. She was in a state of distress about her relatively recent separation from CJ.

On 24 June 2025, after attempting to seek advice from various sources, the grandmother came to an agreement with the mother that she would bring Z to England for the summer.

The mother complains that almost as soon as she arrived in England the grandmother put a block on her calls and prevented her from speaking to Z. The grandmother says that she was driven to block her WhatsApp calls as a result of the stream of abuse which the mother directed towards her. She nevertheless continued to communicate by email.

In July 2025 the grandmother enrolled Z in a local school which he continues to attend. She contacted the social services department of the local authority and Z was made the subject of a ‘Child in Need’ plan. A social worker has met with the grandmother and spoken to Z. At weekends, Z has been staying with his maternal aunt. He speaks once a week to his mother on the telephone, although the grandmother says that, on advice from the social worker, these calls do not take place when the mother is drunk.

In October 2025 the mother came to England to visit Z. According to the grandmother there were at least two occasions during her trip when she was drunk. On one of these there was an incident in a park when the mother assaulted the grandmother by knocking her to the ground and holding on to her. The police became involved.

At the end of December 2025 the mother again came from Hong Kong to visit Z. When she came to meet him, according to the grandmother, she was highly intoxicated although it is unclear to me whether this was as a result of her consumption of alcohol or prescription drugs. The experience was upsetting for Z. His mother told him that she was going to kill the grandmother which caused him considerable anxiety including after the contact had ended. He told his grandmother about the threat and she in turn contacted the police.

The mother does not accept or denies much of what is said against her by the grandmother. In essence, her case is that the events leading to the crisis last summer were precipitated by the breakdown of her relationship with CJ and not part of a wider chronic pattern of substance misuse. She vehemently denies having any involvement in prostitution. She says that she is a loving mother who has a close relationship with her son. She further alleges that the grandmother and her sister hold considerable and unjustified animosity towards her and have engaged in conduct which has alienated Z from her. The closeness of her relationship with him is corroborated by evidence provided by various third parties who have witnessed it first hand in Hong Kong.

The mother also says that her health is now much improved and there is no reason for her to continue to be separated from her child at this important stage of his development. She points to the fact that she has been able to have contact with Z recently on several occasions including staying contact. This has also been successful and without incident.

If Z were returned to Hong Kong, the mother would receive support from friends as well as from the counsellor she has been seeing in connection with her drinking. In the unlikely event of another crisis, Hong Kong social service would be on hand and in a position to intervene to protect Z from coming to harm. Although Z would not be able to return to his old school the mother has identified a new school he could attend. She would rent another apartment of a suitable size for the two of them.

The mother also emphasises that she has been seeking help for her drinking since June. She has an Alcoholics Anonymous (‘AA’) sponsor and has attend a number of meetings with her counsellor. She says that she is committed to abstaining permanently from alcohol, although it is apparent from the evidence that she has yet to achieve this.

Acknowledging the concerns which have been raised by independent professionals, Mr Edwards submits that on the unusual facts of this case the court should make a deferred return order which would take effect at the end of July provided that the mother had complied with a number of conditions. These would require her to arrange accommodation and show that a school place could be obtained for Z. More fundamentally she would need to prove that she had maintained sobriety by undertaking a hair strand test as well as engaging with AA and her personal counsellor.

In the context of these summary proceedings I am unable to make findings of fact in relation to allegations made by the grandmother which the mother disputes. Equally, however, I am not in a position simply to dismiss them, not least because much of what the grandmother alleges receives corroborative support from contemporaneous text messages sent by Z and from statements he has made to independent third parties, namely the local authority social worker and Ms Callaghan, the Cafcass Officer instructed to report in these proceedings.

Z told the social worker last year that he is worried about his mother and that she is still drinking. Amongst other things, he is recorded as having said:

When interviewed by Ms Callaghan on 15 January 2026, Z gave her the following account about his experiences in Hong Kong:

On the subject of his mother’s drinking, Z had the following to say to Ms Callaghan:

In my judgment, the account Z gave Ms Callaghan was articulate, balanced and compelling. I am struck in particular by his description of having stomach pains on the way home, so fearful was he that he might encounter his mother in a drunken state. It chimes with the grandmother’s evidence about his physical reaction – vomiting – when he witnessed his mother lying drunk and naked on the floor and with his description to the social worker of feeling sick when he had to go home. I agree with Ms Callaghan’s assessment when she says:

As Mr Edwards rightly accepts, it is clear from the evidence that Z objects to returning to Hong Kong. He made that plain to Ms Callaghan, telling her that he really does not want to go back ‘right now’ (words upon which Mr Edwards lays emphasis). When Ms Callaghan mooted the prospect of his having to do so he became tearful and distressed. He said:

This is not a case in which a distinction can be drawn between a return to Hong Kong and Z living with his mother. The two are inextricably linked. There is no possibility of his grandmother or aunt returning with him.

The objections expressed by Z predate his meeting with Ms Callaghan. He made his views known to the social worker who previously spoke to him. As recently as 16 April 2026 the mother sent the grandmother a message in which she made clear that Z continues to oppose returning to Hong Kong. This came after she had been able to enjoy several periods of contact with him, the quality of which had not altered his view.

It is also clear that Z has attained an age and degree of maturity at which the court should take account of his views. He is now aged eleven. Ms Callaghan considers that his maturity is commensurate with his chronological age or possibly greater as a consequence of the experiences he has endured. I agree with her.

Z’s objections and maturity mean that I am not obliged to order his return. Art 13 gives me a discretion to refuse to do so. It provides in its second paragraph:

I must exercise my discretion in accordance with the guidance given by Baroness Hale in Re M (Zimbabwe) [2007] UKHL 55. I set out my understanding of the principles in Re C (A Child) (Abduction: Grave Risk: Asylum Claim: Child’s Objections) [2025] EWHC 3461 (Fam) at [78].

As the application involves a wrongful retention from the person who has always been Z’s primary carer the policy of the Convention in favour of a return must carry significant weight. This is especially the case when the person responsible for retaining him is not Z’s parent, but a grandmother who lacks parental responsibility. The weight I give to this factor, however, is tempered by the evidence that the grandmother’s involvement was initiated following a cry for help from Z himself. It is also clear to me that the grandmother’s actions have been driven by a genuine concern for Z’s safety. She has sought guidance from social services, involving them at an early stage following Z’s arrival in England, which I consider was responsible on her part. In retaining Z in England, she followed the advice of the social worker. Ms Callaghan did not agree with the suggestion put to her that that the grandmother had acted inappropriately in keeping Z away from Hong Kong.

The other strong factor in favour of a return is the strength of Z’s connections with Hong Kong. He has lived there since he was a baby. For virtually all of his life he has been cared for by his mother in that jurisdiction. Her love for him is beyond doubt and it is clear that he too loves her very dearly. There is evidence that when she has not been drinking the mother has been able to care for Z very well, evidenced by the fact that he would like in future to be able to live with her as long as she is no longer drinking. Ms Callaghan described Z as a very engaging boy who could also be quite funny. He is clearly charming and polite as well as loyal to his mother. All of this is much to her credit. She has faced the difficult task of bringing him up alone with a limited support network. Z has friends in Hong Kong and appears to have enjoyed a close relationship with his half-brother on his father’s side. He enjoyed playing football. Until last summer Hong Kong had been his home. By contrast he had spent little time in England and had not seen his grandmother often. On the mother’s case, before 2025 she had not visited him for seven years.

The factors which point in favour of a return need to be weighed against the nature and strength of Z’s objections. They are based upon his frightening experiences of living with a parent who misused alcohol. Ms Callaghan’s assessment is that account given to her by Z is genuine and I agree with her that this is likely to be the case. I also agree with her that Z’s views appear to be authentically his own; they are not the product of influence of his wider family. I further agree with Ms Callaghan that the views Z expressed are clear, not ‘nuanced’ as Mr Edwards suggested to her. The fact that they are expressed in terms which come across as balanced and measured, in my judgment, adds to their cogency.

Based upon the experiences which Z has described it is entirely rational for him to object to returning to Hong Kong. In my judgment, for him to be compelled to return there at this juncture in the teeth of his objections would be wholly contrary to his interests. I agree with Ms Callaghan’s assessment that it is likely that Z has gone through events which have been ‘traumatic’ for him.

The mother’s case is that the adverse experiences which S had last year were the result of her drinking in reaction of the end of her five-year relationship. In her initial statement prepared by her solicitor she went so far as to say that her consumption of alcohol on 24 June 2025 was ‘unusual for her’. I find this presentation impossible to accept in the face of evidence to the contrary. As Ms Callaghan has pointed out, Z’s account to her suggests that his life has been overshadowed by instability and alcohol abuse for significantly lower than the mother is willing to admit.

The mother’s level of dependency on alcohol is laid bare by her inability to refrain from drinking since Z came to England last June. Over that period she has had a very strong incentive to demonstrate to professionals and indeed to her son that she is capable of sustained abstinence in order to recover the care of her son. Not only has she failed to do so, there have also been repeated occasions when she appears to have been intoxicated when having contact with Z both face-to-face and by telephone. She must surely know how distressing this must be for him in the context of everything he has been through, but that knowledge is not powerful enough to prevent her from relapsing.

On 12 February 2026 I directed the mother to undertake a hair strand test by 20 March 2026, a direction which had been sought on her behalf. Unsupervised contact was to be conditional upon a negative result. The mother failed to comply with the direction by that deadline or at all. Apart from saying that the parties were engaged in mediation at the time, Mr Edwards was unable to offer an explanation for this significant non-compliance. I am driven to infer that she realised that the results of the test were bound to reveal that she had been drinking to a degree that would be harmful to her case.

If the grandmother’s evidence and Z’s accounts of his life in Hong Kong are substantially accurate, it follows that the mother has minimised the extent of her difficulties. I have already made reference to the initial statement from her solicitor in which her drinking on 24 June 2025 was described as unusual.

In her dealings with social services last summer, the mother failed to acknowledge the serious child protection concerns which gave rise to the situation in which Z found himself. In an email sent on the mother’s behalf, a Hong Kong lawyer who is also a friend of the mother’s wrote to the local authority in the following terms:

It is difficult to regard that representation as anything other than dishonest. It also suggests a lack of insight as to the impact which the mother’s actions had had on her son.

In her statement dated 11 February 2026, which post-dates the Cafcass report, the mother was more open in acknowledging the adverse consequences of her use of alcohol. She nevertheless continued to maintain that her difficulties stemmed from the ending of her relationship last year and other adverse experiences she had around the same time. At paragraph 43, she said:

If Z’s account is correct or mainly so, it would appear that the mother has yet fully to grasp the extent of her difficulties.

The mother’s proposal that there should be a delayed return on the basis submitted by Mr Edwards is, in my judgment, wholly unrealistic. Even if (and it is a big if) she were able through a hair strand test to demonstrate sobriety between now and then, I find that the risk of her relapsing upon Z’s return to Hong Kong would be high. She has been unable to stay sober while in the spotlight of these proceedings despite the fact that over this period she has been attending AA meetings and seeking support from her counsellor. Nor has she been able to acknowledge that her difficulties may be more chronic than the situational reaction to which she admits. I accept Ms Callaghan’s evidence that were she to relapse while caring for Z in Hong Kong, the consequences for him would be devastating. I further accept the point made by Ms Khan that given the poor relationship that exists between the mother and her family and the mother’s asserted perception that the grandmother has engaged in parental alienation, it is much less likely that the mother would turn to her family for support in future. Thus, this limited safety net that previously existed for Z would no longer be present.

I find on the evidence that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Z has suffered psychological harm and neglect to a degree which, in a domestic context, would cross the threshold in section 31 of the Children Act 1989. I accept that in the event of another crisis, children’s services in Hong Kong could intervene to protect Z by offering support to the mother or even removing him to foster care. As a general proposition the court should proceed on the assumption that they would be just as adept at taking appropriate action as their counterparts in this jurisdiction, although this is not an irrebuttable presumption as is illustrated by MacDonald J’s observations in H v O and others (Secretary of State for the Home Department Intervening) [2025] EWHC 114 (Fam) at [66].

On the facts of this case, I consider that the potential for social services to intervene could not adequately protect Z from the risks of harm he would face on a return. By the time the authorities took action, there is a substantial risk that Z would already have suffered further harm. The evidence suggests that Z’s prolonged exposure to the mother’s alcohol abuse has made him hyper-vigilant to the signs that she is drinking, signs which might be too subtle for an outsider to perceive. This led to him repeatedly being in a state of anxiety to a degree where he felt sick and had stomach pains as he returned home, so fearful was he at the prospect of what he might encounter when he walked through the door. This, in my judgment, is a serious form of prolonged psychological harm of a type experienced by children who live with a parent who abuses alcohol or drugs. It is closely intertwined with Z’s love for his mother and born of his fears for her safety as well as his own. On Z’s account, he has witnessed his mother saying that she wants to die. The prospective intervention of a social worker could not shield him from the devastating consequences of going through such experiences again. It would also be emotionally harmful for him to be removed into social care.

I reject the submission made by Mr Edwards that if by July the mother was able to demonstrate three months’ sobriety this, combined with her ongoing commitment to the services offered by AA and her counsellor, would be sufficient to enable Z safely to return to her care in Hong Kong. In order for Z to be and feel safe and secure in her care, she would need to demonstrate not just sobriety but a low risk of relapse. Given her history, including her drinking while these proceedings have been ongoing, it is unrealistic to suggest that the mother could accomplish this in as short a time as three months. Much longer is likely to be needed. I do not agree with Mr Edwards’ submission that in saying to Ms Callaghan that he did not want to return ‘right now’ it can be inferred that Z would be willing to do so by the Summer as long as the mother was then sober.

It is also relevant for me to take into account that the mother does not currently have a home suitable to accommodate Z. While I have no doubt that she would be able to rent somewhere, it means that on a return to Hong Kong Z would be moving to live in an unfamiliar apartment. Of perhaps greater significance is the fact that no school place is currently available in Hong Kong. I am told that the system requires him to be physically present in the jurisdiction before a place can be allocated to him. The mother’s case is that she would enrol him in a different school from that which he previously attended and that it is likely that he would have to go down a year because he has lost fluency in Cantonese and Mandarin as a result of his stay in England. In the context of his opposition to a move and his anxieties a move to an unfamiliar school in which he would be educated with children younger than him would do little to assist him gain a sense of stability.

In most Hague Convention cases, the court expects a person who has wrongfully removed or retained a child to litigate their concerns in the country where the child was habitually resident prior to the removal or retention. In this case, I do not consider that the grandmother would be able easily to do so given her limited means and lack of connection with Hong Kong. There is no evidence about how long proceedings would take, but I imagine that they would be measured in months, at least. While the process was ongoing, there would be no means of adequately safeguarding Z from the risks of harm he would face, for the reasons I set out at paragraph 44.

Ultimately, in the context of Z’s objections, I find that the factors in favour of a return are outweighed by a significant margin by those which militate against a return. His objections are clear, rational and aligned with his welfare. I therefore dismiss the application.

I acknowledge the force in the submission made by Ms Khan that the high hurdle in Art 13(b) is met on the facts of this case. Mr Edwards realistically accepted that what he described as the ‘first stage’ of the exercise identified by the Supreme Court in Re E [2011] UKSC 27 is met; on any Art 13(b) analysis the court’s focus would be upon the proposed protective measures and whether these are capable of mitigating the risk to a level which falls below the threshold contemplated by the article.

Given the conclusion to which I have already come in relation to the exercise of my discretion flowing from Z’s objections, it is unnecessary for me to make findings in relation to Art 13(b) and I expressly decline to do so.

Z loves his mother and is loyal towards her. He would like eventually to live with her once again. His current preference is that this should be in England with the safety net of his wider family, but I can imagine that he may in future be open to returning to Hong Kong if his mother is able to translate her expressed commitment to sobriety into a sustained period of abstinence.

An unfortunate feature of this case is the degree of hostility that exists between the adults. They need to find a way of putting aside their differences and working together in Z’s interests. In that context, I was encouraged by the suggestion made by Mr Edwards that the parties could continue to mediate following this hearing.

Through Mr Edwards the mother has suggested that a refusal to return Z would result in his relationship with her becoming irreparably damaged as he would continue to live with his grandmother and aunt who are hostile towards her. I do not share her pessimism. Z has remained fiercely loyal to his mother throughout this process. He, more than anybody, wants her to return to being the devoted, loving parent she is capable of being so that he can once again live with her. The onus is on her to show him that she is capable of making and maintaining the changes to her life that are needed.