Case Law Search

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return ordered

Return ordered. The Court did not find that the father had consented or acquiesced to the removal of the child from the United Kingdom and the mother did not provide enough evidence to make out an exception to return under Article 13(2) (child’s objections), Article 13(1)(b) (grave risk of harm) or Article 12 (settlement of the child).

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful removal of 5-year-old child - American – unmarried parents, they split up -  the girl lived in California with her mother until she was removed by her father to Mexico – the return request was filed before the Central Authority in the United States of America – appeal allowed, return ordered – main issues: settlement of the child; procedural matters; interpretation of the Convention – the settlement of the child exception was not granted since the mother had filed for return within a year from the wrongful conduct – the Supreme Court held that Mexico lacks a special proceeding for child abduction cases – the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention safeguards the best interests of the child and is compatible with the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States and the different international treaties signed and ratified by Mexico.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful removal of two girls when they were 10 and 6 years old – Married parents – The girls lived in Spain until July 2016 – Appeal allowed, return ordered – Main issues: Removal and retention, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, objections of the child to a return, matters relating to return – There was no concluding evidence that the mother had consented to a change in the girls’ habitual residence to Argentina – There was no grave risk that returning to Spain would cause psychological or physical harm to the girls – The girls did not strongly resist against or oppose returning to Spain, they only stated a mere preference for continuing to live in Argentina – The circumstances of the case had to be taken into account and the COVID-19 health emergency context as well in order to make return immediate and safe.

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

Return ordered

Wrongful retention of a 7-year-old boy - Venezuelan – unmarried parents – Venezuelan father - Venezuelan mother – The rights of custody were jointly exercised – The child lived in Venezuela until November 2012 – The return request was filed before the Panamenian courts in November 2014 – Return ordered – Main Issues: habitual residence, removal and retention, grave risk, procedural matters – The child’s habitual residence was in Venezuela – Removal was wrongful because the travel authorisation used by the mother was false – It was not proved that the father abused the child; the refugee status request was not an impediment against return – Measures were adopted for the child’s safe return to his habitual residence.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful but the children validly objected to their return.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed and case remitted to a different judge of the Ontario Court of Justice to re-determine the Article 13(1)(b) issues.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; there had been no wrongful removal as the Convention had not entered into effect between the United Kingdom and Ontario at the relevant date.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; while the boy's objections to a return were valid and should be taken into account, the girl's were not and it was held that they should not be separated.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return of the children to the United States ordered; the evidence did not support a finding of a grave risk of harm pursuant to Article 13(1)(b).

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate the children would face a grave risk of psychological harm had been met.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Return ordered

Application allowed; counter-application dismissed. The child was ordered to be returned forthwith to California.

If the mother accompanied the child, he would remain in her temporary custody in Los Angeles County with reasonable access to the father, pending any other interim or permanent order of a California court having jurisdiction.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused. The Lord Ordinary had erred in the exercise of his discretion with respect to the objections of the younger child.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful and the father had not acquiesced in the children's retention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful as it was in breach of the father's rights of custody.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the District Court to consider remedies that might allow both the return of the children to their habitual residence and their protection from harm pending a custody hearing in France.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; although the children objected to a return there was evidence of external pressure and the court exercised its discretion to make a return order, finding that the appropriate forum for a substantive custody hearing was South Africa.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the level of risk required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Appeal dismissed, and application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as there was no breach of custody rights.

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

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the High Court for it to exercise its discretion as to whether the child should be returned to England.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal against return order dismissed; the removal was in breach of the father's rights of custody and therefore wrongful.