Dr Charlotte Proudman represents respondent in the High Court opposing the return of the child to Ukraine 


Q v R [2022] EWHC 2961 (Fam)

Dr Proudman was instructed by Melanie Bridgen at Nelsons Law on behalf of the respondent father who opposed the child’s summary return to Ukraine under Article 13(b) because it is a war zone according to the father’s case. The Judge ordered the summary return of the child to Ukraine. The Judge assessed the grave risk of harm or other intolerable situation by reason of the war or other on the basis of the specific context of the town in far West Ukraine (where the child would be returned to). The Judge said among other matters:

59. Barring some remarkable turn of events, it is difficult to foresee how Town B would become subject to active conflict, save by a prolonged incursion into the rest of Ukraine, ultimately reaching the far west of the country close to those borders with European Union and NATO members. It seems to me, therefore, that that risk is very low indeed, although cannot be entirely discounted. If that were to happen though, there would be a period of time preceding it which would give warning to those in that part of the country the opportunity to leave, given that the Hungarian border is close by, and the mother is a Hungarian citizen who is entitled to enter that country.

This is one of few cases in which a summary return order is opposed because the country is a ‘war zone’. Read the Judgment here.

Related barristers: Dr Charlotte Proudman


Goldsmith Chambers and its barristers are
regulated by the Bar Standards Board