Latest Decisions

  • Added on: 6 December 2023 |Superior Appellate Court

    AD v. SD|UNITED KINGDOM - SCOTLAND |HC/E/UKs 1556

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Issues Relating to Return | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

    Order

    Appeal allowed, return refused

    Article(s)

    3 11 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    2 children allegedly wrongfully removed at ages 4 and 7 – Nationals of the United States of America – Parents pending divorce – Father national of USA – Mother national of USA, UK and Ireland – Parents were still married at the time of mother’s wrongful retention – Children lived in Illinois, USA (until 8 June 2022) – Application for return filed with the courts of Illinois, USA on 2 September 2022 – Return ordered 28 February 2023 – Main issues: Where there is a grave risk of harm to the children under Article 13(1)(b) the analysis of protective measures should not be limited to the measures available but should also consider whether these measures would be effective in the specific circumstances.

    View case
  • Added on: 30 November 2023 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision 5A_952/2021 of the 6th of January 2022|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1555

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

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

    Synopsis

    Two children wrongfully retained at ages 14 and 12 – Nationals of Switzerland and Slovakia –Divorced parents – Father national of Switzerland and Slovakia – Mother national of Czech Republic – The children are under joint custody of the parents. The mother has sole care. – Children lived in Spain (until June 2021) – Application for return filed with the Courts of Switzerland on 16 September 2021 – Return ordered

    View case
  • Added on: 30 November 2023 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court 5A_605/2019 of the 4th of September 2019|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1554

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

    Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b) 13(2)

    Ruling

    The Federal Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the exceptions in art. 13 CLaH 80 did not apply.

    View case
  • Added on: 30 November 2023 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court 5A_982/2018 of the 11th of January 2019|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1553

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Rights of Custody - Art. 3

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 5 13(1)(a) 13(2)

    Synopsis

    One child wrongfully retained at age 8 – National of Chile – Unmarried parents – Father national of Chile – Mother national of Chile – Agreement that the “cuidado personal” is solely attributed to the mother, but in fact it is exercised by both – Child lived in Chile until 14 August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 19 September 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: Rights of custody – Even though formally they agreed that the mother has the sole “cuidado personal” in fact both of the parents exercise it and therefore after the agreed date of return to Chile the retention was wrongful.

    View case
  • Added on: 30 November 2023 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision 5A_467/2021 of 30 August 2021|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1552

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

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

    Synopsis

    One child wrongfully retained at age 3 – National of United Kingdom and Switzerland – Married parents – Father national of United Kingdom and Turkey – Mother national of Switzerland and Turkey – Joint parental responsibility – Child lived in the United Kingdom until 7 August 2020 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 12 April 2021 – Return refused – Main issue: Acquiescence/Consent Art.13(1)(a)] –Father’s behaviour deemed acquiescence, namely signing a residence registration, bringing child’s personal effects, transferring money, signing a divorce agreement accepting Switzerland as the place of jurisdiction.

    View case
  • Added on: 1 November 2023 |Appellate Court

    2018 (Ra) No. 2204 Appeal case against an order to return the child|JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1551

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

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

    Synopsis

    One child (Russian national) born in 2014 resided in Russia ― Father and mother Russian nationals ― Parents married in 2014 in Russia ― Parents divorced in 2016 ― Mother took the child to Japan in October 2017 and settled there following her remarriage ― A ne exeat order of the Russian court was partly set aside by confirming the child’s temporary residence in Japan in January 2019 ― Central Authority of Japan assisted the Father with a return application in July 2018 ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to the Tokyo Family Court in October 2018 ― Return ordered ― Appeal dismissed by the Tokyo High Court in February 2019 ― Main issues: rights of custody and grave risk.

    View case
  • Added on: 16 August 2023 |Appellate Court

    A. W. and R. W. Family Appeal No 0010 of 2018|TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO |HC/E/TT 1545

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 4 11 12 13(1)(b) 19

    Synopsis

    Wrongful retention of a child when she was 4 years old - Trinidadian - Trinidadian mother and father - The child lived in the United States for 2 years and 4 months - Return ordered - Appeal dismissed -  Main issues: habitual residence, grave risk, immigration status – The young child’s habitual residence was found to be in the U.S. because that was the place of residence of the mother and because she had lived there for a considerable time - The removal had not been wrongful but retention was since it breached the mother’s right of custody.

    View case
  • Added on: 14 June 2023 |Appellate Court

    A. C. C. s/ Restitución Internacional|ECUADOR |HC/E/EC 1539

    Languages
    No full text available
    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 – Separate parents – Custody rights were jointly exercised – The child lived in Spain until the August 11, 2014 – The request for return was filed before the Central Authority of 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 right of custody which was exercised jointly according to the agreement signed by the mother and father – The settlement of the child was not evaluated because the one year period established by the Convention to that effect had not elapsed – The evidence did not contribute to determine whether there had been sexual abuse, on the contrary, a true demonstration of the risk was necessary to justify applying article 13(1)(b) - The Central Authority of Spain was urged to take measures to protect the child and to do a follow up of the case to provide the father with the necessary support. 

    View case
  • Added on: 19 April 2023 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision 5A_709/2016 of 30 November 2016|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1538

    Languages
    Full text download FR
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    3 11 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2)

    Synopsis

    1 child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 13 – National of Brazil – Divorced parents– Father national of Brazil – Mother national of Brazil – Joint right to determine the residence of the child. Father has custody. – Child lived in Brazil until 31 October 2014 – Application for return filed with the Courts of Switzerland on 28 April 2016 – Return refused – Main issue: Objections of the Child to a Return – Child was mature enough for its opinion to be taken into consideration which constituted a reason to refuse the return based on Article 13(2).

    View case
  • Added on: 19 April 2023 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court 5A_576/2018 of the 31st of July 2018|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1537

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 |

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 5 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 12(2) 12(1)

    Synopsis

    one child wrongfully retained between age 4 and 5– National of unknown –unmarried parents – Father national of unknown – Mother national of unknown – Shared parental responsibility – Child lived in Portugal until 10 March 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 23 April 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: Removal and Retention – The father could not prove that the mother had given her consent for the child to remain in Switzerland and the mother filed an appeal within the one year period set out in Article 12.

    View case