Application for return of child — habitual residence — child's views — grave risk — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 105, 106(1)(d) & (1)(b)(ii) — Hague Convention — Basingstoke v Groot [2007] NZFLR 363 — Anderson v Lewis [2023] NZHC 390 — P v Secretary for Justice [2004] 2 NZLR 28 — SK v KP [2005] 3 NZLR 590, (2005) 24 FRNZ 518, [2005] NZFLR 1064 — P v Secretary for Justice [2007] 1 NZLR 40 — Langdon v Wyler [2017] NZHC 2535 — Armstrong v McCoy [2022] NZFC 8611 — Secretary for Justice v Penney [1995] NZFLR 827 — Ryding v Turvey [1998] NZFLR 313 — Bayer v Bayer [2012] NZFC 2878, [2012] NZFLR 567 — Re K (Abduction: Consent) [1997] 2 FLR 212 — Olliver v Richardson [2018] NZHC 2696 — JHL v Secretary for Justice [2008] NZFLR 54 — Secretary for Justice v M [1996] NZFLR 128; W v W [1993] 2 FLR 211 — Secretary for Justice v HJ [2006] NZSC 97; [2006] 2 NZLR 289. The parties had been married and had two children together. The applicant mother was Spanish and the respondent father was a New Zealander. They had lived in various places together, the most recent being in Spain. Upon their separation, the parties agreed to various arrangements, including a shared care arrangement, and that the parties would live in New Zealand together with the children for one year before returning to Spain, which was approved by the Spanish Court. Following the discharge of the travel arrangement and a subsequent appeal, the arrangement was that the respondent would move to New Zealand for a period of one year with the children. At the end of the one-year period, the respondent failed to return to Spain. Following various attempts to have the children returned to Spain, she applied for an enforcement order of the appeal decision and subsequently sought an order for the return of the children under the Hague Convention. This hearing was to determine an application for return of the children to Spain. The respondent opposed the application. Under an application for return of children, the Court had to determine: where the children were habitually resident, whether there was acquiescence on the part of the applicant to the children remaining in New Zealand, whether the children objected to being returned, and whether, if return was ordered, there was a grave risk of harm to the children. On the first issue, the Court determined that the children were habitually resident in Spain. They had lived there for five years prior to moving to New Zealand. This meant that the requirements of s 105 were met, and the Court had to make an order unless the grounds under s 106 were established. On the issue of acquiescence, the Court found that the communications and actions between the parties were not enough to establish that the applicant had agreed to the children remaining in New Zealand. The Court then considered the children's views, and noted that the children expressed a clear view that they did not want to return to Spain and that they were at an age and level of maturity where their views should be given weight. The Court determined that making an order for return of the children would not expose them to a grave risk of psychological harm. Weighing up all of the factors, the Court considered it appropriate to use its discretion to make an order for return of the children. The Court ordered the children be returned to Spain. Judgment Date: 9 November 2023. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *