Reserved judgment — orders for return — intolerable situation — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 105, 106 & 133 — Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, arts 3, 5, 12 & 13 — LRR v COL [2020] NZCA 209 [3 April 2020] — Basingstoke v Groot [2007] NZFLR 363 — KN v CN [2016] NZHC 2049 — C v C (minor abduction: rights of custody abroad) [1989] 2 All ER 465. The parties had two children, who were currently living in New Zealand with the respondent mother. The respondent and the children had travelled from France to the respondent's home country New Zealand for a holiday. When the respondent and the children attempted to board a flight back to France, they were refused because of confusion about Covid-19 requirements for overseas travel. The respondent returned to her hometown and made no further attempts to return the children to France. The applicant father sought the return of the children to live with him in France. He had begun proceedings before the French Family Court and had obtained a ruling that the children were to be in his care. The respondent opposed the application, submitting that to return to France would expose the children to psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation. She said that the children would be harmed by being separated from her, that she would be negatively impacted by returning to France and that this would in turn affect the children, and that the applicant's work commitments meant that he would be unable to care for the children for long periods. The Court found that if the children were returned to France, the respondent would be able to also relocate and maintain contact with the children. There was no evidence to support the respondent's claims that the applicant was violent toward her, and although France was not the respondent's home country there was still support and employment opportunities available to her there. The applicant submitted that he had altered his work commitments so that he would not need to travel as much, and that his family members would be able to care for the children when he was away. All of the respondent's arguments that return to France would psychologically harm the children or place them in an intolerable situation failed. The Court ordered that the children be returned to France. Judgment Date: 21 December 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *