Case Law Search

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

Return ordered

Child wrongfully retained at age 12 – Citizen of Georgia – Divorced parents – Father national of Georgia – Mother national of Greece – Parents had joint custody – Child lived in Cyprus from 2008 until August 2012 – Application for return was filed with the Central Authority on 18 December 2012 – Main issue: Article 3 – the child’s State of habitual residence was Cyprus and there was no evidence to support the use of one of the exceptions to return under the 1980 Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Two children wrongfully removed at ages nine and seven – Married parents – Shared parental custody – Children lived in Spain until 5 February 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 17 February 2016 –Application dismissed – Main issue(s): Habitual residence - is understood to mean the actual centre of the child's life, which is determined by the factual circumstances; Consent - the departure of the spouse does not require any approval by the other; the only thing requiring approval is the change of the children's place of residence abroad; Grave risk - must be interpreted restrictively: meaning a serious danger, initial language and reintegration difficulties typically do not constitute a serious danger.

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

Return ordered

2 children wrongfully retained at ages 1 and 2 – Married parents – Father national of the United States – Mother national of Canada – Both parents had rights of custody under the laws of Iowa – Children lived in the United State until 16 June 2018 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of the United States on 18 August 2018 – Return ordered – Main issues: Article 3 -  children habitually resident in the United States, father had rights of custody and had only agreed to a one month stay in Canada, retention was therefore wrongful - Article 13(1)(a) Consent & Acquiescence – Exception not established, there is no “clear and cogent evidence of unequivocal consent or acquiescence” - Article 13(1)(b) Grave Risk – Exception not established, measures of protection are available in Iowa.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

1 child allegedly retained at age 6 months – National of the US Father national of US – Mother national of Canada – Father gave open-ended consent to mother to travel with the child to Canada – Child lived in United States for first 42 days of life – Application for return filed with the courts of Canada in December 2017 – The return decision of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court was appealed to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal where the application was dismissed – Main issues: habitual residence – the Court of Appeal applied the “hybrid approach” to determine the habitual residence of the child and found the child to be habitually resident in Nova Scotia.

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

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

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Case remitted to lower court

1 child wrongfully removed at age 4 - National of Switzerland - Unmarried parents - Father national of Switzerland - Mother national of Spain - The lower courts had determined that the removal was in breach of the father’s custody rights - Child lived in Switzerland until August 2013 - Application for return filed with the courts of Spain on 7 November 2013 - Return refused at first instance, then return ordered on appeal - Main issue: settlement of the child - “Amparo” claim successful: the Constitutional Court found that the mother’s constitutional right to effective legal protection had been violated (no ruling on return / non-return) - A proper analysis of whether the child has become settled in its new environment should be conducted where a year has passed since the abduction occurred, in order for a decision to be rendered that is in the best interests of the child - It is immaterial that the delay is not attributable to the conduct of the parents; regardless of the cause, it may not affect the best interests of the child

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

2 children wrongfully removed (born in 2005 and 2007) - Separated parents - The Purvian courts had effectively granted temporary custody to the mother on 21 November 2013, and then to the father on 1 October 2014 (following the removal)  - Children lived in Peru until 20 February 2014 - Application for return filed with the District Court on 17 February 2015 - Return ordered subject to undertakings - Main issues: rights of custody, Art.13(1)(b) "grave risk" exception to return, undertakings - A very severe degree of psychological abuse is sufficient to conclude that the Art. 13(1)(b) "grave risk" exception to return under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention applies, even in cases in which there is very little or no evidence of physical abuse

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The mother's allegation of grave risk was not found to be proved.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed insofar as it was admissible. In particular, the mother had failed to prove the existence of acquiescence or a grave risk of danger.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required by the Convention.

Rights of Access - Art. 21 | Procedural Matters

The father's appeal was dismissed; the mother's appeal was granted. The court excluded any access on the grounds that contact between the father and the children was not in the children's best interests.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application inadmissible, there had been no manifest error in analysis of the child's habitual residence.

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

Return ordered with undertakings offered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.