Law360 Canada ( September 26, 2025, 10:10 AM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant from a decision of an application judge declining to exercise her jurisdiction to return the child to the United Kingdom (UK). This appeal was about what it meant for a parent to consent to or acquiesce in a child’s retention in a foreign country. The appellant and respondent visited Canada from the UK with their child in 2023, and the respondent decided not to return with the child. The central issue was whether the application judge’s decision not to order the return of the child was an error resulting from her improper interpretation and application of the terms “consent” and “acquiescence” as they appeared in article 13(a) of the Hague Convention. The respondent advised the appellant that she did not wish to return to London, and that she and the child would be staying in Canada. The appellant contacted Reunite International and was assisted in applying to the Central Authority. The appellant’s Hague Convention application was issued and the application judge found that the child’s habitual residence was in the UK but that the appellant, through his actions, had consented to or acquiesced in the child’s retention in Canada. As a result, she dismissed the application for the return of the child. She concluded that the fact that the parents discussed their desire to move to Canada amounted to consent or acquiescence. The appellant maintained that the application judge erred in her interpretation of “consent” and “acquiescence”. The respondent, for her part, maintained that the application judge properly interpreted and applied the consent/acquiescence exception....