Latest Decisions

  • Added on: 7 July 2022 |Appellate Court

    2019 (Ra) No. 636 Appeal case against an order to return the child|JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1527

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) |

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    Japanese child born in 2014 ― Father and mother previously foreign nationals and naturalized in Japan ― Parents married in 2001 in Japan ― Parents and child moved to the US in July 2017 ― Child obtained health insurance and enrolled in kindergarten in the US ― Parents established a company and started a business in December 2017 in the US ― Marital relationship deteriorated, and father removed child to Japan in April 2019 ― Neither father nor mother had a long-term visa for the US ― Mother filed petition for the child’s return to the Tokyo Family Court in December 2019 ― Return ordered ― Appeal dismissed and return ordered by the Tokyo High Court in June 2020 ― Main issue: Habitual residence of the child and grave risk defence.

    View case
  • Added on: 7 July 2022 |Appellate Court

    2016 (Ra) No. 1262 Appeal case against dismissal of case seeking return of a child|JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1526

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 |

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    3

    Synopsis

    1 child (Australian and Japanese national) resided in Australia and Japan ― Father Australian national, mother Japanese national ― Parents married in 2013 in Australia ― Parents lived together in Japan from November 2013 until June 2014, until the father returned to Australia ― Mother joined Father in Australia from September 2014 until October 2015, with a written agreement to reside there only up to two years ― Mother returned to Japan with the child in October 2015 ― Father visited them in Japan from mid-December 2015 until mid-January 2016 ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to the Osaka Family Court in March 2016 ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal dismissed and return refused by the Osaka High Court in 2017 ― Main issue: Habitual residence of the child.

    View case
  • Added on: 7 July 2022 |Appellate Court

    2019 (Ra) No. 1038 Appeal case against dismissal of case seeking return of a child |JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1525

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 |

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    3 35

    Synopsis

    Daughter born in 2007 and son in 2012 ― Father, mother and both children previously Sri Lankan nationals and naturalized in Japan in 2017 ― Father living in Japan since 1999 and mother since 2002 ― Parents married in 2002 ― Father principally moved to Sri Lanka with two children in July 2017, but maintained his job, home and residence registration in Japan ― Mother also travelled back and forth ― Children enrolled at school in Sri Lanka in September 2017, but went back to their elementary school in Japan during long school breaks ― Parents separated since August 2018, followed by petitions for a custody order and divorce to the Osaka Family Court ― Mother retains son since April 2019 in Japan ― Father returned to Sri Lanka with daughter in May 2019 ― Father filed petition for the son’s return to the Osaka Family Court in June 2019 ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal dismissed and return refused by the Osaka High Court in October 2019 ― Main issue: Habitual residence of the child.

    View case
  • Added on: 7 July 2022 |First Instance

    2018 (Ie Nu) No. 14, 15 and 16 Case seeking return of children|JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1524

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) |

    Order

    Return refused

    Article(s)

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

    Synopsis

    3 children habitually resident in Spain ― Father Spanish national, mother Japanese national ― Parents married in 2009 in Japan ― Upon marriage, father adopted mother’s child born out of wedlock in 2006 ― Two children were born within wedlock in 2011 and 2015 ― Parents first lived together in Japan and later relocated to Spain in May 2011 ― Mother brought three children to Japan in May 2017 and notified Father of her intent to divorce and stay in Japan ― Father filed petition for the return of the children to the Tokyo Family Court in October 2018 ― Petition dismissed ― Main issue: Settlement of the children.

    View case
  • Added on: 5 May 2022 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision of the Federal Supreme Court 5A_437/2021 of 8 September 2021|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1523

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) |

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    1 3 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    1 child (allegedly) wrongfully removed at age 4 – National of the USA – Unmarried parents – Father national of the USA and the Dominican Republic – Mother national of Switzerland, the Dominican Republic, Italy – Shared parental responsibility – Child lived in the USA – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Switzerland on 7th of January 2021 – Return refused – Main issue: Grave Risk (Art. 13(1)(b) – Status quo ante cannot be attained, since mother has a travel ban to the USA. Grave risk to the child if separated from the mother for the next 10 years.

    View case
  • Added on: 6 April 2022 |First Instance

    L. E. A. C. s/ Restitución Internacional|CHILE |HC/E/CL 1522

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

    Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters |

    Order

    Return refused

    Article(s)

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

    Synopsis

    Alleged wrongful retention of the child when he was 9 years old – National of Argentina – Unmarried parents –Argentine father – Argentine mother – The child lived in Argentina until November 2014 – The return request was filed before the Chilean court on 22 April 2016 – Return refused – Main issues: habitual residence, rights of custody, settlement of the child, art. 13(1)(b) exception of grave risk, objections of the child to a return, procedural matters - the habitual residence of the child before the removal was in Argentina – the mother had rights of custody under the Convention, and thus retention was not wrongful and the father had no standing to request the international return – over two years elapsed between the arrival of the boy in Chile and the filing of the request, and the child was already settled in – return would certainly put the child at risk of endangering his physical and psychological integrity, due to his mother and him experiencing family violence – the child openly stated his wish not to return to Argentina.

    View case
  • Added on: 6 April 2022 |First Instance

    G/G. RIT: C-403-2017|CHILE |HC/E/CL 1521

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

    Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters |

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    1 3 5 6 8 10 12 17

    Ruling

    Return ordered

    View case
  • Added on: 5 April 2022 |Appellate Court

    K. K. J C/ P. C. .S S/ RESTITUCIÓN INTERNACIONAL|ARGENTINA |HC/E/AR 1520

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

    Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters |

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    3 12

    Synopsis

    Lawful removal of a 2-year-old girl – Argentine national – Married parents – American father – Argentine mother – The girl lived in Argentina until April 2017, when her family travelled to the United States. She stayed there and then returned to Argentina in September that same year – The father requested her return before the Argentine courts – Appeal dismissed, return refused – Main Issues: habitual residence, removal and retention – The habitual residence of the girl was in Argentina because she had created no stable or permanent bonds in the United States that allowed for a determination that her place of living was there – The removal was lawful since it had been authorised by court in accordance with Argentine law.

    View case
  • Added on: 25 February 2022 |Appellate Court

    U. V. s/ Restitución Internacional |EL SALVADOR |HC/E/SV 1519

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

    Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters |

    Order

    Appeal allowed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    11 16 17

    Synopsis

    Wrongful retention of two children, a boy aged 4 and a girl aged 6 – Nationals of the United States, Costa Rica and El Salvador – The children resided in Lourdes de San Vito de Coto Crus, Puntarenas, Costa Rica at the moment of the removal to El Salvador – The return application was submitted before the Central Authority of the Republic of El Salvador – Appeal allowed, return ordered – Main issues: removal and retention, rights of custody, objections of the child to a return, procedural issues – The habitual residence of the children before the removal was in Costa Rica – The children were wrongfully retained by their mother in El Salvador because they did not return to Costa Rica after a month of vacation as agreed– Both parents had rights of custody – The hearing process of the children and the taking of their opinions into consideration were not carried out properly – The debate over the merits of the rights of custody unnecessarily delayed the return proceeding, in contravention of the nature and purpose of the Convention.

    View case
  • Added on: 25 February 2022 |Appellate Court

    M s/ Restitución Internacional|PARAGUAY |HC/E/PY 1518

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

    Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children | Issues Relating to Return |

    Order

    Appeal allowed, return ordered

    Synopsis

    Wrongful retention of a child who was 6 years old at the time of the decision – National of Uruguay – Separated parents – Shared legal custody and physical custody of the mother – The child lived in Uruguay before being removed to Paraguay - Appeal allowed, return ordered – Main issues: habitual residence of the child, removal, retention, Article 11(b) of the Inter-American Convention exception of grave risk, objections of the child to a return – The habitual residence of the child before the removal was in Uruguay – The child was wrongfully retained in Paraguay by his mother because he did not return to Uruguay upon the expiration of the period authorised by the father – There is no grave risk under the Convention given that the evidence offered was related to the merits of the custody rights’ case – The statement of the child did not entail a serious objection under Article 11 of the Convention, but only a preference to stay in Paraguay – The Court ordered that the mother should receive the means necessary to accompany the child to Uruguay.

    View case