Overview

International child abduction cases under the Hague Convention are among the most complex and urgent matters in family law. The recent decision by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia in Beri v. Sachdeva, 2026 BCCA 20, provides critical guidance on two primary defenses against the return of a child: acquiescence and the grave risk of harm. While the Court dismissed the father's appeal, effectively allowing the mother and children to remain in British Columbia, the reasoning clarifies the high evidentiary burden required to prove a parent consented to a child's removal.

Case Background and Key Facts

The case involved a family that had been habitually resident in California. The appellant father, Vikram Beri, and the respondent mother, Anumeet Sachdeva, are Indian citizens who moved to the United States in 2021. Following a severe decline in the father's mental health—diagnosed as bipolar disorder with psychotic features complicated by substance abuse—the family traveled to India for his medical treatment in July 2024.

Following a violent assault in India where the father attempted to strangle the mother, she fled to British Columbia with the children in August 2024. The father subsequently filed a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction seeking the summary return of the children to California. The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed his petition based on two Article 13 exceptions: that the father had acquiesced to the move, and that returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of harm. The father appealed to the BCCA.

The High Bar for Acquiescence (Article 13(a))

One of the most legally significant aspects of this decision was the Court of Appeal's reversal of the trial judge's finding on acquiescence. Under Article 13(a) of the Convention, a court is not bound to return a child if the left-behind parent consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal.

The trial judge had relied on text messages and emails from the father, specifically a message stating, "It was a good decision to go to Canada," and a subsequent email discussing the creation of a "base in Canada." The Court of Appeal, led by Mr. Justice Butler, found this to be an error. Citing precedents such as Katsigiannis v. Kottick-Katsigiannis, the Court emphasized that acquiescence is a subjective test requiring clear and cogent evidence of unequivocal consent.

The appellate court noted that the father's communications were attempts to negotiate a resolution or temporary measures during a crisis, rather than a permanent waiver of his rights. The Court reasoned that parties should be encouraged to negotiate without fear that exploring settlement options will be interpreted as legal acquiescence. This establishes that conditional offers or expressions of relief regarding a temporary safety plan do not constitute the unequivocal consent required to defeat a Hague application.

Grave Risk of Harm and Domestic Violence (Article 13(b))

Despite siding with the father on the issue of acquiescence, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the mother successfully established the "grave risk of harm" exception under Article 13(b). This exception applies if returning the child would expose them to physical or psychological harm or place them in an intolerable situation.

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings regarding the father's history of "irrational and dangerous" behavior. The evidence included a delusional episode where the father declared himself God and held the family captive, as well as the strangulation attempt in India. The father argued that California courts were capable of protecting the children, citing the principle that courts should generally trust the legal systems of other contracting states.

However, relying on the seminal case of Pollastro v. Pollastro, the Court rejected this argument. The BCCA clarified that the analysis is not merely whether California has adequate laws (which it does), but whether those laws could effectively protect the children given the specific facts of the case. The Court found there was "reason to doubt" that protective orders would be effective, noting that the father had repeatedly breached existing No Contact Orders and lacked a verified treatment plan for his severe mental health issues. As noted in the decision, when an abuser demonstrates coercive controlling violence and non-compliance with court orders, no justice system may be able to provide complete protection.

Implications for British Columbia Law

Beri v. Sachdeva reinforces the protective scope of Article 13(b) in cases involving severe domestic violence and untreated mental illness. It confirms that while the Hague Convention prioritizes the prompt return of children, this objective does not override the safety of the child when a grave risk is proven. Furthermore, the decision serves as a warning to courts not to interpret ambiguous negotiation attempts as legal acquiescence, preserving the ability of parents to discuss potential resolutions without prejudicing their legal rights.

Practical Advice for Families

For parents involved in potential relocation or abduction disputes, this case offers practical takeaways. First, for the parent opposing a return, documenting the history of abuse and the specific failure of past protective measures is essential. General allegations are often insufficient; the court looks for evidence that the foreign jurisdiction cannot practically ensure safety.

Conversely, for the left-behind parent, this case highlights the importance of precise communication. Text messages sent in the heat of the moment can be scrutinized as evidence of consent. It is vital to seek legal counsel immediately upon a child's removal to ensure that any communications clearly reserve legal rights regarding the child's residence.

Legal counsel should be engaged immediately in these scenarios, as Hague Convention proceedings move rapidly and turn on specific evidentiary thresholds.