Can a parent who wrongfully removed a child argue the other parent later consented to the move?

Yes, this is a recognized defense under the Hague Convention, but it requires clear evidence that the other parent genuinely consented to the move, or later acquiesced to it, not just that they didn't immediately take legal action to demand the child's return. Courts distinguish carefully between real, informed consent or acquiescence and a parent's initial shock, hope for reconciliation, difficulty accessing legal help, or simply not knowing how to respond quickly — none of which, on their own, amount to consent or acquiescence under this defense.

Evidence relevant to this defense can include communications between the parents around the time of the move, what each parent said or did afterward, and how much time passed before the other parent objected or took steps to seek the child's return. Because the burden is on the parent raising this defense to show consent or acquiescence clearly, and because delay alone is rarely enough, this defense is harder to establish than it might initially seem. Anyone raising or facing this defense should gather a clear, detailed timeline of communications and actions from around the time of the move.