Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The current situation in Israel does not preclude the return of a minor child based on the provision of Article 13(1)(b).

Non-Convention Issues | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Application dismissed

The constitutional complaint of the child was not lodged in a permissible way (need to be presented by a guardian-ad-litem). 

The complaint brought by the mother in her own name was inadmissible as she returned with the child to Ukraine for around 3 weeks. Additionally she did not demonstrate sufficiently a possible violation of basic rights.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

One child wrongfully retained at age 3 - Dual British-American national - Parents married in 2018 but separated in 2023 -  Father American national - Mother British national - Family lived in Texas, USA until mother wrongfully retained child in UK in February 2023 - Father applied for return in England on 22 June 2023 - Return ordered by consent - Mother appealed this based on a lack of consent and absence of protective measures in light of alleged abuse - Main issues: grave risk (Article 13(1)(b) and protective measures; Lack of proper consent - Court found the protective measures were ineffective and not enforceable in Texas, and absence of agreement - Appeal allowed, return refused, and case remitted to lower court.

Non-Convention Issues

Case remitted to lower court

One child aged 12 - National of Ukraine - Unmarried parents - Father national of Ukraine - Mother national of Ukraine - Mother married British national and gained spousal visa in 2017 - Child lived in Ukraine until 2018 when mother took child to UK - Mother wrongfully retained child - Father gained return order - Mother and child returned to Ukraine in May 2019 - Mother wrongfully removed child in October 2019 and returned to UK - Father granted second return order in July 2020 - Mother made asylum application for child on 20 October 2020 and applied to stay 1980 Hague Convention proceedings on 26 October 2020 - Child granted asylum on 28 May 2021 - Court overturned return order because of the child's asylum status - Father appealed this - Main issues: art.13(1)(b), art.13(2), and asylum claim - The grant of asylum did not automatically nullify Hague proceedings - Appeal allowed and case remitted for urgent case management hearing.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Two children wrongfully removed at ages 6 and 3 - Nationals of Romania - Divorced parents - Father national of Romania - Mother national of Romania - Parents share caring responsibilities for the children and frequently moved between England and Romania throughout marriage - Father consented to children living in England with mother post-divorce - Children lived with father in Romania between September 2019 and February 2020 - Children returned to England with mother - Father sought to renege on his earlier consent - Application for return filed in England on 17 July 2020 by the father - Return ordered notwithstanding a finding of consent - Mother appealed this decision - Main issues: habitual residence and consent - Court agreed that children were habitually resident in Romania, however, allowed the appeal in relation to consent

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

Case remitted to lower court

Three children wrongfully removed aged 4, nearly 3, and 19 months - All children born in Spain - Unmarried parents - Father national of Morocco - Mother national of UK - Children placed in foster care by Spanish authorities in September 2020 - Children returned to their parents in April 2021 - Children lived in Spain until the mother wrongfully removed them to England on 23 August 2021 - Application for return filed with the Central Authority of England and Wales on 25 February 2022 by the father - Return ordered - Mother appealed under art.13(1)(a) and (b) - Appeal allowed, case remitted - Main issues: first instance judge should have heard oral evidence on the issue of consent and should have considered allegations under art.13(1)(b) collectively, not independently

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Two children, 12-year-old girl a (‘X’) and 6-year-old boy (‘Y’), wrongfully removed - Nationals of the United Kingdom and Mauritius - Father national of the United Kingdom and Mauritius - Mother national of the United Kingdom and Mauritius - All lived together in the United Kingdom until 2019 before travelling to Mauritius - Parents separated in 2020, following which Mother had primary care and Father had regular contact - Mother wrongfully removed children to the United Kingdom in 2022 - Father filed application for return with the High Court - Summary return ordered and Article 13(1)(b) defence rejected - X joined as a party - Summary return order set aside following X’s Article 13(2) objections - Father appeals this - Main issues: scope of solicitor-guardian’s role in Hague proceedings - weight attributed to the child’s objections - Appeal dismissed, return refused. 

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

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.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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.

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

Case remitted to lower court

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.