Holiday consent did not permit permanent retention of children

Children brought to Jamaica for an agreed holiday were ordered to return to the United Kingdom after the Supreme Court found that their father had not consented to their remaining here. The decision in the anonymised case GBL v SAM was delivered on 30 April.

The children had lived in the United Kingdom from birth. The mother’s reliance on an ambiguous conversation about staying longer did not establish consent to permanent relocation, and the return proceedings began within a year of the retention.

The court considered the Convention’s exceptions rather than treating return as automatic. On the evidence presented, concerns about accommodation and care arrangements did not establish the required grave risk; the older child’s expressed preference also did not displace the return obligation in this case.

The judge ordered return by 16 May and made arrangements for travel documents, handover and tickets. This was a return decision, not an award of custody to the father: the court identified the United Kingdom as the place where custody and access should be determined.

The report retains the court’s anonymisation and does not establish whether the subsequent return directions were carried out. Complete official judgment reviewed; subsequent appeals or treatment have not been checked.