News / National
UK court rejects Zimbabwean father's bid to bring son home
3 hrs ago | Views
The United Kingdom High Court has dismissed a Zimbabwean father's attempt to secure the return of his 11-year-old son, ruling that his parental rights under a Zimbabwean court order amounted only to access, not custody, and therefore did not constitute "wrongful" removal under the Hague Convention.
The case, F v L & Ors [2025] EWHC 2190 (Fam), involved T, born in 2014. His parents met in Zimbabwe in 2013 and separated in 2017. A Zimbabwean magistrates' court in January 2022 granted custody to the mother while providing the father with defined contact rights.
In October 2022, the mother relocated T to England to live with her sister and brother-in-law without notifying the father. The father only discovered the move in 2024 after hearing a voice note of his son speaking with an English accent. He subsequently located the family, traveled to the UK in February 2025, and filed a Hague return application in April.
Deputy High Court Judge Vikram Sachdeva KC ruled that under Zimbabwean law, a parent with custody may take a child abroad unless prohibited by court order. An access-only parent, however, lacks veto powers over relocation. Referring to previous cases, the judge concluded the father's rights did not extend to preventing the move.
Applying the Hague Convention's framework, the court found the father's rights were not "rights of custody" under Articles 3 and 5, citing Hunter v Murrow [2005] and Re D (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006]. "I do not construe the father's rights as extending to a power of veto… the rights enjoyed by the father do not constitute ‘rights of custody'," the judgment stated.
The court also considered the child's welfare. Despite the mother's concealment and years of limited contact, T was found to be thriving in England, fully integrated at school and in the community. The judge cited prior cases, including Re N (1991) and Cannon v Cannon [2004], noting that a child's settled life weighed against ordering a return.
Defences such as acquiescence and grave risk were also addressed. Even if settlement had not been decisive, the court indicated it would not have ordered T's return, emphasizing that the Convention's "hot pursuit" aim cannot be fulfilled once a child is firmly settled. A separate application under the court's inherent jurisdiction was similarly rejected, and the father's claims were dismissed in full.
The case, F v L & Ors [2025] EWHC 2190 (Fam), involved T, born in 2014. His parents met in Zimbabwe in 2013 and separated in 2017. A Zimbabwean magistrates' court in January 2022 granted custody to the mother while providing the father with defined contact rights.
In October 2022, the mother relocated T to England to live with her sister and brother-in-law without notifying the father. The father only discovered the move in 2024 after hearing a voice note of his son speaking with an English accent. He subsequently located the family, traveled to the UK in February 2025, and filed a Hague return application in April.
Applying the Hague Convention's framework, the court found the father's rights were not "rights of custody" under Articles 3 and 5, citing Hunter v Murrow [2005] and Re D (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006]. "I do not construe the father's rights as extending to a power of veto… the rights enjoyed by the father do not constitute ‘rights of custody'," the judgment stated.
The court also considered the child's welfare. Despite the mother's concealment and years of limited contact, T was found to be thriving in England, fully integrated at school and in the community. The judge cited prior cases, including Re N (1991) and Cannon v Cannon [2004], noting that a child's settled life weighed against ordering a return.
Defences such as acquiescence and grave risk were also addressed. Even if settlement had not been decisive, the court indicated it would not have ordered T's return, emphasizing that the Convention's "hot pursuit" aim cannot be fulfilled once a child is firmly settled. A separate application under the court's inherent jurisdiction was similarly rejected, and the father's claims were dismissed in full.
Source - online
