Case Law Search

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the standard required under Article 12(2) to show that the children were settled in their new environment had not been made out.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

The court granted an order that the child should be restored into the care of the mother if he arrived within the jurisdiction in the immediate future.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the child's place of habitual residence prior to the wrongful retention was Italy. The standard required under Article 20 had not been met.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained at age 6 months - National of United Kingdom and Ukraine - Married parents- Father national of the United Kingdom - Mother national of Ukraine – Applicant father had joint custody with respondent mother under British legislation – Child lived in the United Kingdom until 11 April 2012 -Application for return filed with the courts of Ukraine on 19 December 2012 - Return ordered on 29 August 2018 - Main issues: Articles 5 and 12 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention (a parent cannot independently decide to change the child’s place of habitual residence; the place of habitual residence is of major importance to restoring of the status quo for the child; first instance court and appeal court incorrectly interpreted exceptions for non-return of a child as a settlement in new environment, acquiescence in the retention and grave risk to return).

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal refused; return allowed. It was settled that the retention was wrongful.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters | Issues Relating to Return

Return ordered with undertakings offered

Wrongful removal of a boy when he was 10 years old - Venezuelan – the father had exclusive custody rights  - the child lived in Venezuela until 2018 – the father requested return before the Venezuelan Central Authority in July 2020 – return ordered – main issues: removal and retention, consent, settlement of the child, grave risk, objection of the child to a return, procedural matters, issues relating to return – removal was wrongful since it breached the father’s custody rights, attributed to him under the law of the State where the child was habitually resident – the father did not consent to the child’s removal – he acted towards the child’s return within a year since the wrongful removal – it was not established that the child would be exposed to a grave risk or an intolerable situation upon return to Venezuela – it was not established that the child’s fundamental rights were impaired – there was not an irreducible objection of the child against returning to the place where he was habitually resident - the Court ordered an interim exit and change of residence ban - the Court ordered the parents to collaborate with enforcement of the return order - the Court ordered to take the necessary steps for the child’s safe return

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Non-Convention Issues | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal allowed; the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that English law retained a discretionary, residual basis of jurisdiction over children based on their British nationality. The case was remitted to the trial court to decide whether to exercise this jurisdiction. Were the trial court not to exercise the jurisdiction, a preliminary ruling application would be made to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to enable the Supreme Court to decide on the habitual residence of the child.

Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10 | Procedural Matters

Appeal upheld in part: the tribunal administratif had jurisdiction to hear the case, but the application was rejected on the merits since the Central Authority had the power not to process the application on the basis of Article 27 of the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

The challenge was upheld insofar as the treatment of custody issues by the cour administrative d'appel was concerned but other than that the latter decision was upheld and the application to annul the decision of 7 June 1993 was dismissed.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; more than one year had passed between the retention and the filing of the legal action and it was not contested that the children were settled in their new environment. 

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed; the removal was wrongful but the case was remitted to the Family Court in Christchurch to enable it to determine whether any of the exceptions were applicable.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Rights of Access - Art. 21

Access ordered; the court recognized and enforced the American access order.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal of the child was wrongful as the mother was in breach of her own rights of custody.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the Irish court held rights of custody in respect of the child and the father was allowed to rely on those rights in making a return application under the Convention.

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

The father's appeal was allowed and the order dismissing his application as an abuse of the process set aside. The mother's cross-appeal was dismissed as the child was found to be habitually resident in Germany immediately prior to her removal. The child was to be returned to Germany, subject to undertakings.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Legal challenge dismissed; the retention was wrongful but decision to refuse to return the child on the basis of the Art. 13 exceptions upheld.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the retention was wrongful, but the child objected to a return to the UK and the standard required under Article 13(2) had been established.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

4 children allegedly retained - aged 10, 13, 14 and 16 at the time of the decision – Nationals of Canada and Germany – Father national of Germany – Mother national of Canada – Both parents had rights of custody – Children lived in Germany until August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Ontario in August 2018 – Application dismissed – Main issue(s): Habitual Residence – Art 3 – The children were habitually resident in Canada and therefore there was no wrongful retention