“Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that – a) …b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation…” a) …b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation…”
“Where are you both and what do you want? Where are you both??????? You were supposed to be here in the afternoon.”
“It has to be noted that since August 2015, i.e. from the day the participant [the mother] in the proceedings went abroad, it was SK who has direct custody of six-year-old SL. He looked after him and was committed to providing the best current conditions to live and develop. The minor at the time was regularly attending nursery and spent his free time with his father.” “It has to be noted that the applicant father, SK, is a professional soldier. He has stable employment which allows him to personally take and collect his son from school and look after him in the afternoons. His life is stable. On occasions when he had to participate in training his mother will cover additional duty or his friends would look after the child. The guardian confirmed in his assessment that the applicant’s living arrangements were very good [the father]. The minor loved being at home with his dad where, until he was taken to England, was the centre of his life. The quality of care provided by the applicant to his son during the absence of his mother has never been questioned by the guardian or by nursery staff.”
“The court of first instance correctly noted that this was an important circumstance for the minor’s sense of safety and stabilisation as the minor was, without any warning, removed from familiar to him surroundings to a foreign country where the residents speak the language he does not understand. Taking the circumstances under consideration, the court of second instance decided that for the duration of the proceedings SK [the father] offers a better guarantee of correct custody over the minor.”
“Although the participant [the mother] in the proceedings has a stable job and from September lives in independent accommodation in England, this court believes that it is not enough to establish that it is in the minor’s best interests to live with his mother abroad. It has to be noted that the minor, SL, is only six years old. In July 2016 he was removed to a foreign country, foreign culture, and made to live among foreigners with whom, due to language barrier, he cannot communicate well enough. The minor was suddenly removed from the community he knew all his life. The participant in the proceedings did not take under [into] account the minor’s feelings, his attachment to places and people with whom he was growing up. All the plans concerning his education, instead of starting attending school which is located near his father’s place of residence with his nursery friends, he was removed to a place where he could only count on his mother.” “This court believes that at this stage of the proceedings it is the minor’s best interests to require him to come back to his well-known environment where he felt safe, be well-looked after and all his needs were met. The move from England to Poland should not negatively affect the minor as he thinks at the moment that he is on extended holidays at his mother’s place” [I remind myself that this judgment was given last November and so life has moved on some three or four months]. “It has to be noted that the evidence gathered in this case regarding the maturity of the participant [the mother] in the proceedings and her willingness to care for the child is causing concerns. She was acting irrationally when she removed her son from Poland without taking any action to regulate the legal situation regarding his place of residence. Earlier she did not find any time the six months before to come to Poland to see her son despite a declaration of the attachment of the child and the fact that nowadays travelling by plane between the UK and Poland lasts two to three hours and its cost, when booked early enough, is not too high.”
“At the time when the father exercised the care, no irregularities occurred in terms of the exercise of parental authority. The applicant claims the child’s mother supposedly accused him of excessive rigour and lack of supervision over the child’s hygiene which is contrary to the findings made during an interview with the boy’s tutor at nursery.”