Application for return of child — Hague Convention — welfare and best interests — child objection — grave risk of intolerable harm — habitual home — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 6, 7AA & 106 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, arts 12 & 13 — White v Northumberland [2006] NZFLR 1105 (CA) — W v N [2006] NZFLR 793 — Re D (a child) (abduction: rights of custody) [2007] 1 All ER 783 — Anderson v Lewis [2023] NZHC 390 — Anderson v Lewis [2022] NZHC 1924 — Secretary for Justice v HJ [2006] NZSC 97 — LRR v COL [2020] NZCA 209 — HJ v Secretary for Justice (2006) 26 FRNZ 168. The parties had previously been in a relationship and had a child, who was now 14. All three were from Ireland. The respondent mother had taken the child on a holiday to New Zealand and decided to stay, enrolling the child in school. The applicant father subsequently applied for an order for the return of the child. The respondent conceded that the jurisdictional criteria had already been met in that the child was present in New Zealand, he was removed from Ireland where he was a 'habitual resident', and his removal breached the applicant's right to custody. However the respondent argued that the child objected to being returned to Ireland, and that there was a grave risk that a return to Ireland would place him in an intolerable situation. The Court considered the evidence of the parties and the opinions of the child, and found that there was a clear and strong preference of the child to stay in New Zealand. This was based largely on a more healthy lifestyle in New Zealand, both physically and socially, but also on some allegations of abuse by the applicant father. Regarding the question of how much weight should be given to the opinions of the child, on balance the Court found that the child's objection to removal should be viewed as decisive. He had lived experience in both Ireland and New Zealand, and his expressed view was clear and strong. The Court was satisfied that it was in the child's best interests to remain in New Zealand, and the application was dismissed. For completeness, the Court also engaged with the "grave risk of an intolerable situation" issue, finding that the defence was established. The applicant and the child had a demonstrably strained relationship, and removing the child from his school and his friends would have put him in a stressful and intolerable situation. Judgment Date: 15 April 2024. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *