Latest Decisions

  • Added on: 25 October 2024 |Appellate Court

    Court of second instance, Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Stuttgart / family division (Familiensenat) / Az.: 17 UF 186/22|GERMANY |HC/E/DE 1593

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    3 12 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    One child wrongfully removed at age 1 – National of Ukraine – Married parents – Father national of Ukraine – Mother national of Ukraine – Mother and father have joint custody –Child lived in Ukraine until 02.03.2022 –Application for return filed with the Central Authority/courts (choose!) of [State] on [date] –Return refused – Main issue(s): Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return  – [Summary of the outcome of the main contentious issue(s) The return of a child to a war zone where it could be exposed to a real threat entails a serious risk of physical or psychological harm being caused to the child.

    View case
  • Added on: 25 October 2024 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision of Federal Court 5A_756/2023 of 10 November 2023|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1592

    Languages
    Full text download FR
    Summary available in EN | FR
    Grounds

    Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    7 13(1)(b)

    Ruling

    The Federal Court rejected the appeal and upheld the cantonal court's decision ordering the children's return to Israel. However, it stated that given the current situation in Israel, it would be up to the competent enforcement authority to organise the safe return of the children, accompanied by their mother, as soon as the situation allowed.

    View case
  • Added on: 25 October 2024 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision of the Federal Supreme Court 5A_149/2017 of 19 April 2017|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1591

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

    Order

    Case remitted to lower court

    Article(s)

    13(2) 26

    Synopsis

    One child wrongfully removed at age ten – National of Switzerland and Spain – Unmarried parents – Father national of Spain – Mother national of Switzerland – Joint custody according to Spanish law – Child lived in Spain until January/February 2016 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Spain on 17 February 2016 – Case remitted to lower court – Main issues: objections of the child to return – According to the mother, the child has expressed that he does not wish to return to Spain. An expert opinion that was ordered by the competent cantonal court has affirmed the child’s ability to independently form such an opinion. The father, however, invokes that the expert’s opinion was biased towards the mother and overlooked multiple factors that put the child’s maturity level as defined in 13 (2) into question.

    View case
  • Added on: 24 October 2024 |Superior Appellate Court

    M. C., R. J. C/ Y. C., M. E. – RESTITUCIÓN INTERNACIONAL DE NNA|ARGENTINA |HC/E/AR 1590

    Languages
    Full text download ES
    Summary available in EN | ES
    Grounds

    Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters | Issues Relating to Return

    Order

    Return ordered with undertakings offered

    Article(s)

    3 8 9 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 20

    Synopsis

    Wrongful removal of a boy when he was 10 years old - Venezuelan – the father had exclusive custody rights  - the child lived in Venezuela until 2018 – the father requested return before the Venezuelan Central Authority in July 2020 – return ordered – main issues: removal and retention, consent, settlement of the child, grave risk, objection of the child to a return, procedural matters, issues relating to return – removal was wrongful since it breached the father’s custody rights, attributed to him under the law of the State where the child was habitually resident – the father did not consent to the child’s removal – he acted towards the child’s return within a year since the wrongful removal – it was not established that the child would be exposed to a grave risk or an intolerable situation upon return to Venezuela – it was not established that the child’s fundamental rights were impaired – there was not an irreducible objection of the child against returning to the place where he was habitually resident - the Court ordered an interim exit and change of residence ban - the Court ordered the parents to collaborate with enforcement of the return order - the Court ordered to take the necessary steps for the child’s safe return

    View case
  • Added on: 24 October 2024 |Superior Appellate Court

    Resolución Nº 9579 - 2021|COSTA RICA |HC/E/CR 1589

    Languages
    Full text download ES
    Summary available in EN | ES
    Grounds

    Issues Relating to Return

    Synopsis

    Wrongful retention of a boy – Uruguayuan and Costa Rican – Divorced parents – The child lived in Uruguay until 6 february 2020 – The return request was made before the Costa Rican Central Authority - Habeas corpus disallowed – Main Issues: Non-Convention Issues -  the safeguard in Art. 32 of the Constitution is not unlimited, it must be examined in consideration of the HCCH Convention on Child Abduction and the best interests of the child.

    View case
  • Added on: 24 October 2024 |First Instance

    M. Z., A. R. c. G. M., A. N. s/ restitución internacional de menores|ARGENTINA |HC/E/AR 1588

    Languages
    Full text download ES
    Summary available in EN | ES
    Grounds

    Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children

    Order

    Return refused

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b) 13(2) 20

    Synopsis

    Wrongful removal of three girls when they were 15, 10 and 7 years old - Paraguayan – married parents – Paraguayan father – Paraguayan mother – the girls lived in Paraguay until October 2018 – the return request was filed before the Paraguayan Central Authority – return refused – main issues: grave risk, human rights, procedural matters – returned exposed the girls to a true risk of suffering psychological and physical harm, since they were victims of their father’s violence, as well as their mother was – return would amount to a violation of their dignity due to the violence exerted by their father – considering that the mother had returned to Paraguay, the maternal grandmother was given provisional care for a 90-day period until the girls returned to Paraguay with their mother

    View case
  • Added on: 23 October 2024 |Appellate Court

    B. H. C/ D. M. S. P/RESTITUCIÓN INTERNACIONAL DE NNA|ARGENTINA |HC/E/AR 1586

    Languages
    Full text download ES
    Summary available in EN | ES
    Grounds

    Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(b) 16

    Synopsis

    Wrongful removal of a girl when she was 6 years old – American – Divorced parents – American father – shared custody rights; after removal, exclusive custody of the father – the girl lived in the U.S. since birth until mid-2022 – the return request was filed before the Argentine courts in August 2022 – return ordered – main issues: grave risk; jurisdiction issues; procedural matters – the grave risk exception cannot be granted if the violence/sexual abuse reported can be duly addressed by the authorities in the State of habitual residence – the merits of the custody issue must be resolved in the State of habitual residence – the safe return measures must be adequately tailored to the best interests of the child and must not interfere with the merits of the rights of custody issue.

    View case
  • Added on: 8 May 2024

    K. A. A. M. s/ restitución internacional|EL SALVADOR |HC/E/SV 1585

    Languages
    Full text download ES
    Summary available in EN | ES
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 12 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    Wrongful retention of a 4 year old child – Colombian and Salvadorian – Married parents –  Salvadorian mother – Shared rights of custody – the child lived in Colombia since birth until January 2019 – the return request was filed before the Colombian Central Authority in February 2019 – Return ordered – Main issues: habitual residence; removal and retention; art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception; procedural matters – The habitual residence of the child was in Colombia – The child was wrongfully retained, in breach of the parents’ jointly-exercised rights of custody – The grave risk the child would be exposed to was not established – Measures were ordered to ensure the child’s return to Colombia, such as his return together with his father and his preparation toward the return

    View case
  • Added on: 8 May 2024 |Appellate Court

    Incidente de Restitución Internacional de Menor Nro. 09009-2023-00410-1|GUATEMALA |HC/E/GT 1584

    Languages
    Full text download ES
    Summary available in EN | ES
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Interpretation of the Convention

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 7 12 12(2)

    Synopsis

    Wrongful retention of a girl when she was 4 years old – Guatemalan and American – separated parents – the girl was born in the United States, as proved by her birth certificate – the Central Authority of Guatemala filed the return request before court in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala – appeal dismissed, return ordered – main issues: habitual residence; removal and retention; settlement of the child; interpretation of the Convention – the habitual residence of the child before the wrongful retention was in the United States, as evidenced by her birth certificate and medical records – the wrongful retention took place when the father did not return her to the United States on the agreed date after her holiday with the grandparents, to which the mother had consented – the immediate return ought to be ordered since the child had spent less than a year in the requested State – the HCCH Convention on Child Abduction does not require the conduction of socioeconomical or psychological studies on the parents in order to make a decision on return

    View case
  • Added on: 10 April 2024 |Appellate Court

    X v. Y|EL SALVADOR |HC/E/SV 1583

    Languages
    Full text download ES
    Summary available in ES
    Grounds

    Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

    Order

    Appeal allowed, return refused

    Article(s)

    3 12 13(1)(b)

    View case