Case Law Search

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Challenge to legality upheld; the removal no longer infringed any custody rights.

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

Application allowed and partially founded. The child's return to Spain was ordered as the retention was wrongful and the grave risk exception invoked was not applicable.

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

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was wrongful but Articles 13(1)(b) and 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention. The return was therefore refused.

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

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was wrongful and Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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).

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.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Unanimous: no breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; Article 12(2) had been proved to the standard required by the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention and discretion exercised not to make a return order.

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

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 

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of a 5-year-old boy – Peruvian and American – Married parents –The child lived in Peru until September 2014, then the family changed its place of habitual residence to the United States – The mother filed a return request before the Peruvian courts on 24 August 2016 – Return ordered – Main issues: Habitual Residence; Removal and Retention; Settlement of the Child; Objections of the Child to a Return – The habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful retention was in the United States – The mother had rights of custody over the child under the custody and visitation agreement approved by the U.S. court – The wrongful retention occurred because the father did not return with the child by the date established in the travel authorisation issued by the mother – The child was gradually detaching from the mother because of the father’s actions.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful removal of a seven-month-old child – U.S. national – Married parents – Father a U.S. citizen – Mother a Brazilian citizen – Shared rights of custody – Child lived in the United States from birth until May 2021 – Return application submitted to the Central Authority in the United States in September 2021 – Appeal allowed, return ordered – Key issues: habitual residence, rights of custody, settlement of the child, grave risk exception – The child’s habitual residence was in the United States – Custody matters must be resolved by the courts of the State of the child’s habitual residence – The father filed the return application within one year of the wrongful retention – The Court held that the allegations of domestic violence were not substantiated, and that neither the child’s separation from the taking parent nor the immigration obstacles faced by the mother were sufficient to establish the grave risk exception.

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.