Can a child who has been granted refugee status in the UK still be returned to the country from which they were wrongfully removed? A recent High Court judgment has considered this question in the context of a proposed return to Germany under the Hague Convention and an alleged risk of onward refoulement to Eritrea.
In Re CDG (A Child) (Article 13(b): Refugee Status and Safe Third Country) [2026] EWHC 2425 (Fam), the High Court considered whether a child should be returned to Germany following a wrongful removal to the UK, despite the child having subsequently been granted refugee status here. Patrick Sheedy, Partner and Head of Child Care at NBB Waldrons, has reviewed the judgment and provides his commentary on the case, the court’s approach and the wider issues it raises for international children law.
Patrick specialises in children law and has particular experience in international child abduction cases, including applications under the 1980 Hague Convention and proceedings before the High Court.
What happened in Re CDG?
This is an interesting case because the High Court had to consider the interplay between international child abduction, refugee status and the potential onward refoulement of a child.
The family were citizens of Eritrea and had previously been living in Germany, where the mother and child had humanitarian protection. The mother subsequently travelled with the child and an older half-sibling to the UK and claimed asylum.
The Home Secretary recognised the mother as a refugee and the children were granted status in line with her as dependants. Importantly, the judgment records that there had not been a separate determination of the child’s individual protection needs.
It was accepted that the child had been wrongfully removed from Germany. The father therefore applied under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the child to be returned. The mother resisted the application under Article 13(b).
The court was therefore dealing with two different but overlapping legal frameworks: the Hague Convention mechanism for returning a wrongfully removed child and the international protection afforded to the child in the UK.
What is Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention?
The 1980 Hague Convention provides an international framework for securing the prompt return of children who have been wrongfully removed from, or retained away from, the country in which they were habitually resident.
In the UK, the Convention has force through the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. The Government also provides guidance on international parental child abduction.
Article 13(b) provides an important exception. A court is not bound to order a return where the person opposing it establishes that there is a grave risk that returning the child would expose them to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation.
This is a high and fact-sensitive threshold. The court must consider the circumstances of the individual child and the evidence about what is likely to happen if they are returned.
Why was refugee status important?
This is where I think Re CDG becomes particularly interesting.
The question was not simply whether a child with refugee status in the UK could be returned to another country. A central issue was whether returning the child to Germany created a risk of onward refoulement from Germany to Eritrea and whether that risk would expose the child to the grave risk contemplated by Article 13(b).
The court therefore had to look beyond the immediate return to Germany and consider the evidence about what might realistically happen afterwards.
Refugee protection and Hague Convention proceedings serve different legal purposes. A child’s refugee status is plainly relevant, but it does not automatically establish an Article 13(b) defence.
In Re CDG, the court ultimately ordered the child’s return to Germany.
For me, this is one of the most important aspects of the judgment. Refugee status cannot be disregarded and, depending on the circumstances, could form a significant part of the evidence before the court. Equally, it cannot simply be treated as creating an automatic defence to return.
The court still has to consider what returning that particular child would actually mean, including, where relevant, whether there is a genuine risk of onward removal to another country.
Why does Re CDG matter?
Re CDG illustrates the complexity that can arise when international children law and immigration law meet.
It also follows Re LM (A Child: Return Order to the UAE; Humanitarian Protection) [2026] EWHC 1988 (Fam), which considered a different but related question involving a child with humanitarian protection in the UK. I recently looked at that judgment in Can a Child with Humanitarian Protection Be Ordered to Return Abroad?.
There is an important distinction between the cases. Re LM concerned humanitarian protection and a proposed return to the UAE. Re CDG concerns refugee status, a Hague Convention application for return to Germany, Article 13(b) and an alleged risk of onward refoulement to Eritrea.
They should not therefore be treated as interchangeable. What both demonstrate is why a child’s immigration or protection status must be considered within the particular legal framework and evidence before the court.
Each case turns on its own circumstances.
My view on the judgment
What I find particularly interesting about Re CDG is the distinction between the child’s protection status in the UK and the separate question the court was required to answer under the Hague Convention.
Refugee status is clearly an important consideration, but it does not automatically determine whether Article 13(b) is established. The court still has to look carefully at the evidence, the circumstances facing that particular child and what is realistically likely to happen following a return.
Cases of this nature demonstrate why international children proceedings can become legally complex very quickly. Different areas of law may overlap, but the court must still apply the relevant legal test to the individual circumstances of the child.
Advice on international child abduction
International child abduction cases can move quickly and may involve several overlapping areas of law. Obtaining specialist advice at an early stage can therefore be particularly important.
I regularly advise and represent parents in complex international children cases, including international child abduction and Hague Convention proceedings. You can find out more about how our specialist team can help on our Child Abduction Solicitors page.
NBB Waldrons has offices across the West Midlands and Worcestershire, including Birmingham, Dudley, Merry Hill, Kingswinford, Walsall and Worcester, as well as offices in Cheltenham and London.
If you need advice about international child abduction or Hague Convention proceedings, please contact NBB Waldrons on 0333 016 1100.
