Latest Decisions

  • 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
  • Added on: 23 February 2022 |Appellate Court

    A. C. C. s/ Restitución Internacional|ECUADOR |HC/E/EC 1517

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    1 3 5 12 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    Wrongful retention of the child – Separated parents – Custody rights were jointly exercised – The child lived in Spain until 11 August 2014 – The request for return was filed before the Central Authority in Spain in September 2014 – Return ordered – Main issues: habitual residence, removal and retention, settlement of the child, art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, procedural matters – The habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful removal was in Spain – There was wrongful retention in breach of the custody rights, which were exercised jointly pursuant to the agreement signed by the mother and father – The settlement of the child was not considered because the one-year period required by the Convention had not elapsed – The evidence did not contribute to determining whether there had been sexual abuse; on the contrary, a true demonstration of the risk was necessary to justify the application of article 13(1)(b) - The Central Authority of Spain was urged to take measures to protect the child and to do a follow-up on the case to provide the father with the necessary legal support.

    View case
  • Added on: 23 February 2022 |First Instance

    DEFENSORÍA DE POBRES Y AUSENTES NRO. 1 s/ RESTITUCIÓN - RESTITUCIÓN INTERNACIONAL DE MENOR|ARGENTINA |HC/E/AR 1516

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

    Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | 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 | Interpretation of the Convention |

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

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

    Synopsis

    Wrongful removal of a 7-year old girl – Chilean – unmarried parents – Chilean father – Argentine mother – custody rights belong with the father – the girl lived in Chile until late 2019 – return application submitted before the Family Court in Formosa, Argentina, in September 2020 – return ordered – main issues: removal and retention, settlement of the child, art. 13(1)(b) grave risk, objections of the child to the return, procedural matters, interpretation of the Convention – retention was wrongful because the custody rights of the father, effectively exercised by him at the time, were infringed – the time required by the Convention to refuse the return on grounds of settlement of the child in her new environment did not elapse – no evidence that the child would be exposed to grave risk upon her return – there were no objections by the child showing an irreducible objection against returning to the place of habitual residence – due to effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the parents were invited to cooperate in the implementation of the return order and to avoid unnecessary delays – there are no incompatibilities between the Convention and the Convention on the Rights of The Child; both are meant to protect the best interests of the child.

    View case
  • Added on: 22 February 2022 |Superior Appellate Court

    G. F., L. C. c. R., M. R. Restitución internacional de hijo|ARGENTINA |HC/E/AR 1515

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

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) |

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    13(2)

    Synopsis

    Wrongful removal of a child when he was 7 years old - Argentine - Unmarried parents - Paraguayan mother - The child lived in Paraguay from December 2016 to October 2017 – Return to Paraguay refused – Main issues: habitual residence, objections of the child to a return – The Supreme Court of Buenos Aires held that the child’s habitual residence was in Paraguay, and found that the removal to Argentina was  wrongful since it breached the mother’s rights of custody under the Paraguayan law – The court considered that the child´s objection to return was established since the child expressed at all stages of the proceedings his complete refusal to return to Paraguay, alleging mistreatment by classmates and relatives.

    View case
  • Added on: 22 February 2022 |Appellate Court

    M.P.S. C/ M.V.M.S. S/ RESTITUCIÓN INTERNACIONAL DE MENORES DE EDAD|ARGENTINA |HC/E/AR 1514

    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 | Undertakings |

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    1 3 4 11 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    Wrongful retention of a child - Mexican – Married parents – The child lived in Puerto Aventuras, state of Quintana Roo, Mexico, until February 2020 – The return application was filed with the Argentine Central Authority – Appeal dismissed, return refused – Main issues: habitual residence, removal and retention, article 13 (1) (b) grave risk exception, procedural matters, undertakings – The habitual residence of the child was in Mexico – The child was wrongfully retained in Argentina by her mother, which did not return to Mexico within the agreed time authorized by the father - The grave risk exception for domestic violence has been proved to the standard required under the Guide to Good Practice, Art. 13 (1) b – The return application fell within the scope of the Hague Convention and the Inter-American Convention, but the former was applied – It was not feasible to implement effective measures to protect the mother and the child in the event of their return.

    View case