Download full text
EN
Case Law Search
New searchCASE
Case Name
LCYP v. JEK [2015] HKCA 407; [2015] 4 HKLRD 798; [2015] 5 HKC 293
INCADAT reference
HC/E/CNh 1360
Court
CHINA (HONG KONG, SAR)
High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region - Court of Appeal
Appellate Court
Hon Lam VP, Cheung JA, and Kwan JJA
States involved
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CHINA (HONG KONG, SAR)
Decision
13 August 2015
Upheld on appeal
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)
Appeal dismissed, return refused
-
M v E (CACV 75/2015) [INCADAT reference HC/E/CNh 1356]; BLW v. BWL [2007] HKCA 72; [2007] 2 HKLRD 193 [INCADAT reference HC/E/CNh 975]; Re J (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1990] 2 AC 562 [INCADAT reference HC/E/UKe 2]; C v S (A Minor) (Abduction) [1990] 2 FLR 442; Re M (A Minor) (Abduction: Habitual Residence) [1996] 1 FLR 887; Re B (Minors) (Abduction) (No 2) [1993] 1 FLR 993 [INCADAT reference HC/E/UKe 173]; LM v HTS [2002] 1 HKC 194; Court of Final Appeal’s judgment of Vallejos v Commissioner of Registration (2013) 16 HKCFAR 45; R v Barnet London Borough Council, ex p Nilish Shah [1983] 2 AC 309; Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-523/07); Mercredi v Chaffe (Case C-497/10PPU) [INCADAT reference HC/E/FR 1044]; A v A and another (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre and others intervening) [2013] UKSC 60 [ICNADAT reference HC/E/PK 1233]; In re L (A Child) (Custody: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening) [2013] UKSC 75 [INCADAT reference HC/E/US 1237]; In re LC (Children) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening) [2014] UKSC 1 [INCADAT reference HC/E/ES 1256]; In re R (Children) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre and others intervening) [2015] UKSC 35; AR v RN [2015] UKSC 35 [INCADAT reference HC/E/UKs 1345]; A v A [2013] UKSC 60 [INCADAT reference HC/E/PK 1233]; Re H & Another (Minors) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1991] 2 AC 476 [INCADAT reference HC/E/UKe 115]; Re M (Republic of Ireland) (Child’s Objections) (Joinder of Children as parties to appeal) (English Court of Appeal, [2015] EWCA Civ 26, Judgment dated 27 January 2015); In re R (A Minor: Abduction)[1992] 1 FLR 105 [INCADAT reference HC/E/UKe 59]; S v S [1999] 3 NZLR 513; Re R (Child Abduction: Acquiescence) [1995] 1 FLR 716 [INCADAT reference HC/E/UKe 60]; Re M (A Minor) (Child Abduction) [1994] 1 FLR 390 [INCADAT reference HC/E/UKe 56].
-
SYNOPSIS
Synopsis available in
EN
|
FR
2 children allegedly wrongfully retained (aged 10 and 14 at the time of the decision) – Married parents – Father national of the United-States – Mother national of China Hong Kong SAR and the United-States – Children lived in the United States until July 2013 – Application for return filed in February 2015 – Application dismissed – Main issues: habitual residence, wrongful retention, and children’s objections to return – A change of habitual residence occurs when a move from one State to another has a sufficient degree of stability – The absence of a joint parental intention to reside in a given State is not decisive in precluding the possibility of the children having established habitual residence there – Retention is considered wrongful from the moment the parent knows (s)he will not return to the previous country – When taking into account children’s views, a preference may be sufficient to meet the standard of the child’s objection exception under Art. 13(2), provided it is substantial
Deux enfants supposément retenus illicitement (âgés de 10 et 14 ans au moment de la décision) – Parents mariés – Père ressortissant américain – Mère ressortissante de la RAS de Hong Kong (Chine) et des États-Unis d’Amérique – Enfants résidents aux États-Unis jusqu’en juillet 2013 – Demande de retour déposée en février 2015 – Demande rejetée – Principaux enjeux : résidence habituelle, non-retour illicite et objection des enfants au retour – Le changement de résidence habituelle survient lorsque le déménagement d’un État à l’autre revêt un degré suffisant de stabilité – L’absence d’intention conjointe quant à une résidence dans un État donné n’empêche pas la possibilité que les enfants aient établi leur résidence habituelle dans cet État – Le non-retour devient illicite à partir du moment où le parent est conscient qu’il ne retournera pas dans l’autre État – Lorsque l’on tient compte du point de vue des enfants, une préférence peut s’avérer suffisante pour remplir les exigences de l’exception au retour fondée sur l’objection des enfants visée à l’art. 13(2), à condition que cette préférence soit concrète
SUMMARY
No summary available