Application for return of children — denial of consent to relocation — return of child to foreign country — whether children should be returned — removal of child from New Zealand —jurisdiction of court to make order — wrongful removal or retention of child — whether reasons exist to refuse to make an order — whether grave risk or intolerable situation if returned — order preventing removal — habitual residence — Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 95 & 105 — Family Court Rules 2002, rr 220 & 416HA — Martin v Ryan [1990] 2 NZLR 1209 — SK v KP [2005] NZLR 509 (CA) — H v H (1995) FRNZ 498 — H v R [2017] NZHC 2617. The applicant father sought orders that the parties’ two children be returned to the United States, their country of habitual residence on the grounds that the children had been relocated without his consent. The respondent mother argued that the father had consented to the move and that for her to move back would compromise her ability to live given her financial prospects in the United States. The court concluded that at the date of removal, the children were habitually residing in the United States with reference to the fact that the children had been living there for over four years, one child had been born there, the parents had been living in the same house there for the duration of their time in the United States, they always returned to the United States after holidays and the had been enrolled in both schools and doctor’s clinics there. The mother relied on the child’s objections to return, the grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation on their return, and the father’s consent to the move. In respect of the argument that the children objected to being returned, the court found that, on the enquiries made, there was no evidence as to the reluctance of either child to be returned and accordingly, that defence was found to have failed. In respect of the second argument, that there was a grave risk of harm or intolerable situation, the mother argued that she had significant health issues that she would may not be able to address in the United States due to financial constraints. The court rejected this argument as it was found that the children would not be placed in an intolerable situation even if the mother was not present as they have a home waiting for them and care readily available. The court then addressed the mother’s final argument, that the father consented to the relocation of the children to New Zealand. The court accepted the father’s position that he did not provide consent and believed that the children were to return following a holiday. This was supported by the fact that the children had return tickets to the United States, the father’s response to the mother’s request to extend the vacation on the grounds that she had committed to returning the children, and the father’s evidence which was described as consistent, cogent and corroborated. The court was satisfied that the children had been wrongfully removed from the United States and an order was made that they be returned with the details of that return to be negotiated through counsel Judgment Date: 8 December 2017. * * * Note: Names have been changed to comply with legal requirements * * *