Application for return of children to Northern Ireland — consent to removal — grave risk of harm — intolerable situation — child objection defence — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 105 & 106 — Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, art 1 — Basingstoke v Groot [2007] NZFLR 363 — S v S [1999] NZFLR 625 — KMA v the Secretary of Justice [2007] NZFLR 891 — Re K (abduction: consent) [1997] 2 FLR 212 — H v R [2017] NZHC 2617 — Secretary for Justice v LHM [child abduction] [2009] NZFLR 1033 — AHC v CAC HC Auckland CIV-2011-040-000727, 4 May 2011. In this case the applicant father sought the return of three children from New Zealand, where the respondent mother had taken them, to Northern Ireland. Under the Care of Children Act (the Act), which codified the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Convention), an application for return will be successful if it can be shown that: (a) the child is in New Zealand; (b) the child was removed from another Contracting State in breach of an applicant’s rights of custody; (c) at the time of removal those rights were being exercised (or would have been but for the removal); and (d) the child was habitually resident in the Contracting State immediately before removal. It was accepted that all of the requirements were made out. The mother raised two defences under s 106: that the applicant consented to the removal and the eldest child objected to being returned. The onus was on the mother to make out one or more of the defences. Based on the communications between the parties, the applicant did not consent to the children moving to New Zealand and was not aware of the removal until after it occurred. Determination of a defence on the ground of a child objection is a four-step process: (a) Does the child object to return? If so; (b) Has the child attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to give weight to the child’s views? If so; (c) What weight should be given to the child’s views? And; (d) How should the residual statutory discretion be exercised? The eldest child did object to returning. However, his views were based mostly on wanting to make his mother happy and being sick of moving. There was no evidence that he was particularly mature for an eight-year-old so it was unclear what weight should be given to his views. This defence also failed. The application for return of the children to Northern Ireland was granted. Application for return of children to Northern Ireland — consent to removal — grave risk of harm — intolerable situation — child objection defence — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 105 & 106 — Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, art 1 — Basingstoke v Groot [2007] NZFLR 363 — S v S [1999] NZFLR 625 — KMA v the Secretary of Justice [2007] NZFLR 891 — Re K (abduction: consent) [1997] 2 FLR 212 — H v R [2017] NZHC 2617 — Secretary for Justice v LHM [child abduction] [2009] NZFLR 1033 — AHC v CAC HC Auckland CIV-2011-040-000727, 4 May 2011. In this case the applicant father sought the return of three children from New Zealand, where the respondent mother had taken them, to Northern Ireland. Under the Care of Children Act (the Act), which codified the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Convention), an application for return will be successful if it can be shown that: (a) the child is in New Zealand; (b) the child was removed from another Contracting State in breach of an applicant’s rights of custody; (c) at the time of removal those rights were being exercised (or would have been but for the removal); and (d) the child was habitually resident in the Contracting State immediately before removal. It was accepted that all of the requirements were made out. The mother raised two defences under s 106: that the applicant consented to the removal and the eldest child objected to being returned. The onus was on the mother to make out one or more of the defences. Based on the communications between the parties, the applicant did not consent to the children moving to New Zealand and was not aware of the removal until after it occurred. Determination of a defence on the ground of a child objection is a four-step process: (a) Does the child object to return? If so; (b) Has the child attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to give weight to the child’s views? If so; (c) What weight should be given to the child’s views? And; (d) How should the residual statutory discretion be exercised? The eldest child did object to returning. However, his views were based mostly on wanting to make his mother happy and being sick of moving. There was no evidence that he was particularly mature for an eight-year-old so it was unclear what weight should be given to his views. This defence also failed. The application for return of the children to Northern Ireland was granted. Judgment Date: 26 February 2019. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *