Get notifications for newly added cases by subscribing to our notification service.

Latest Decisions

  • Added on: 8 October 2025 | First Instance

    J v. K [2025] EWHC 2175 (Fam) | UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES | HC/E/UKe 1639

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Non-Convention Issues

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b)

    Ruling

    Return ordered with undertakings and protective measures.

  • Added on: 8 October 2025 | First Instance

    YM v ML [2025] EWHC 2219 (Fam) | UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES | HC/E/UKe 1638

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b)

    Ruling

    Return ordered, subject to undertakings.

  • Added on: 8 October 2025 | Appellate Court

    Re S (A Child) (Abduction: Article 13(b)) [2025] EWCA Civ 1119 | UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES | HC/E/UKe 1637

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

    Order

    Appeal allowed, return refused

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b)

    Ruling

    Appeal allowed, return refused. The first instance judge did not properly apply the approach as set out in Re E. The mother established that Article 13(1)(b) applies and there is no justification for exercising the court’s discretion by making a return order.

  • Added on: 8 October 2025 | First Instance

    Llorente & Horcajo v. El Benaye Case No. 25-CV-22582-RAR | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | HC/E/US 1636

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

    Order

    Return refused

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(b) 12(2)

    Ruling

    Return refused. The children were at grave risk of harm if they returned to Spain and were settled in the USA. 

  • Added on: 8 October 2025 | First Instance

    Boa-Bonsu v Owusu Case No. 2:25-cv-00632 | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | HC/E/US 1635

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Non-Convention Issues

    Order

    Application dismissed

    Ruling

    Motion to Strike granted, equitable estoppel argument is stricken. The 1980 Hague Convention provides for limited exceptions to return and estoppel is not among them.

  • Added on: 8 October 2025 | First Instance

    Re B (A Child) (Abduction: Acquiescence: Article 13(b)) [2025] EWHC 2144 (Fam) | UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES | HC/E/UKe 1634

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

    Order

    Return refused

    Article(s)

    13(1)(a) 13(1)(b)

    Ruling

    Return refused due to acquiescence of the father.

  • Added on: 8 October 2025 | First Instance

    Ochoa v. Perez 7:24-cv-04736-NSR | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | HC/E/US 1633

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Best Interests of the Child

    Order

    Return refused

    Article(s)

    3 12 13(1)(b) 13(2) 12(2)

    Ruling

    Return refused based on the elder child's objections, the fact that the children were now settled in the USA and the grave risk of harm should they be returned to Mexico.

  • Added on: 25 September 2025 | Appellate Court

    2023 (Ra) No 1228 Appeal case against an order to return the Child | JAPAN | HC/E/JP 1630

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    13(1)(a) 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    Father was a US national and mother was a Japanese national ― Parents married in 2014 in Japan ― Their sons were born in 2016 and 2017 in Japan respectively ― The entire family moved to California, the United States in 2018 ― In 2022 mother started to seek divorce but father refused ― Mother took the children to Japan in December 2022 ― Mother declared consensual divorce in February 2023 in Japan following their alleged divorce agreement entered in November 2022 ― Father denied to have signed a divorce form or divorce agreement ― Upon father’s petition, the Osaka Family Court ordered the return of the children to the United States ― Appeal dismissed and return ordered ― Main issue: Consent and Grave Risk.

  • Added on: 25 September 2025 | Superior Appellate Court

    2021 (Kyo) No. 8 Case of appeal with permission against the order of the court of appeal to revoke an indirect compulsory execution order | JAPAN | HC/E/JP 1629

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Issues Relating to Return

    Order

    Appeal allowed, application dismissed

    Article(s)

    17

    Synopsis

    The parents and the children resided in France ― After the parents’ separation, the father removed two children from France to Japan ― Osaka Family Court ordered the return of the children to France on 11 September 2020, which became final and conclusive on 9 December 2020 ― Divorce decree rendered in France on 23 November 2020 ordered joint custody of the parents and the children to reside with the father in Japan, while only granting visitation right to the mother ― The Osaka Family Court granted the mother’s claim for indirect compulsory execution on 1 February 2021 ― The Osaka High Court reversed the decision and dismissed the mother’s claim to honor the French custody decision on 14 April 2021 ― The Supreme Court upheld the decision on the grounds that the mother’s claim for indirect compulsory execution became unlawful after the children returned to France as a result of compulsory execution by substitute ― Two justices concurred and opined that the lower court decision may conflict with Art. 17 of the 1980 Convention  Main issue: Admissibility of indirect compulsory execution that runs counter to a foreign custody order.

  • Added on: 25 September 2025 | Appellate Court

    2019 (Ra) No. 1881 Appeal case against dismissal of case seeking return of a child | JAPAN | HC/E/JP 1626

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 12 13(1)(b) 25

    Synopsis

    Child (US and Japanese national) born in 2016 in the US ― Father a US national, mother a Japanese national ― Unmarried parents ― The father has been using cannabis and exercised violence against the mother ― Parenting arrangement between the parents based on joint custody and alternate stay of the child every week ― Approved by the US court in October 2018 ― Mother took the child to Japan with the father’s consent for three weeks in December 2018 ― Mother never returned and started to retain the child in Japan early January 2019 ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to the Tokyo Family Court in July 2019 ― The mother attempted suicide ― Return application dismissed ― Appeal allowed and return ordered by the Tokyo High Court in January 2020 ― Main issue: Grave risk for the child to be returned.