Application for return of child — retention of child in New Zealand — child objecting to return — assault — welfare of child — United Kingdom — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 95, 105, 106 & 107 — Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 — Basingstoke v Groot [2007] NZFLR 363 — White v Northumberland [2006] NZFLR 793. The applicant father sought the return of the parties' 15 year old son to the United Kingdom (UK). The child had lived in the UK until late 2018 when he came to New Zealand and began living with his mother. The move to New Zealand came about after the father was arrested for assaulting the child and the child was removed from the father's care by a social service authority. 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. Under s 95 of the Act, the word "removed" also encompasses "retention". There was no dispute that each of the grounds in s 105 had been met. The mother's opposition was based on the child's objection to return to the UK. Under s 106 (1)(d) the court may refuse to make an order for return if it is satisfied that the child objecting has obtained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take the child's views into account and to give them weight. 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 child expressed to both the Judge and lawyer for child that he did not want to return to the UK. He could not live with his father (who he maintained was abusive), liked his new school better and enjoyed the slower pace of his New Zealand home and city. Aged 15, the child showed he had developed normal maturity. His reasons for not wanting to return were logical and well thought-out. He had also considered his situation should he be ordered to return. The Judge decided his views should be given considerable weight and decided to exercise the residual discretion not to order the return of the child. The child was to remain in New Zealand with his mother. Judgment Date: 12 August 2019. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *