Case Law Search

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

1 child wrongfully removed at age 6 – Unmarried parents – The mother had day-to-day care of the child and the father had supervised contact – Child lived in New Zealand until May 2016 – Application for return heard at first instance in December 2016 – First appeal: application dismissed – Second appeal: return ordered – Main issues: rights of custody, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, undertakings / conditions for return – The finding that there is no ”grave risk” within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) “while at the same time foreshadowing a preparedness to impose conditions on the order for return” can be consistent - fulfilment of conditions prior to the child’s return should be feasible and cannot place the taking parent in a better situation than she was before the removal

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

Appeal allowed, the exception of grave risk was inapplicable; case returned to the Superior Court of the canton of Lucerne for a ruling on the terms of the return to Burkina Faso.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal had rightly taken into account the High Court judgment to refuse a return order.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused. The abduction was wrongful but there was a grave risk that ordering a return would expose the child to harm. It had not been established that the Hungarian authorities could ensure the protection of the child.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Removal wrongful; however Convention proceedings adjourned pending determination of substantive custody proceedings in the State of the child's habitual residence.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

By a 4:3 majority: No infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the conditions asserted was applicable.

Interpretation of the Convention

Lower-court judgment reversed and applications dismissed as having become pointless.

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

Confirmation of the order of 8 March 2006, in that it ordered the child's return; reversal of judgment of 23 March 2006. The removal was wrongful and the return could not be denied on the basis of Article 13 because adequate protection measures had been taken in Italy.

Interpretation of the Convention | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Guidance on the application of the Convention issued

2 children retained at ages 11 and 8 – Nationals of Canada – Married parents – Father national of Canada – Mother national of Canada – Father transferred physical custody in a notarised letter to the mother for the period April 2013 to August 2014, to allow the children to enroll in a Canadian school – Children lived in Germany until April 2013 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Germany on 11 April 2014 – Return decision of the Court of Appeal of Ontario of 13 September 2016 was appealed to the Supreme Court, but the children were returned to Germany before the Court rendered its judgment; despite the appeal being moot, the Court considered the issues raised to be important and in need of clarification – Main issues: interpretation of the Convention, habitual residence, objections of the child to a return, procedural matters – To ensure uniformity of State practice, courts should generally adopt the interpretation of the Convention that has gained the most support in other foreign domestic courts – The “hybrid approach” to determining habitual residence (which considers all relevant factual links and circumstances in their entirety, instead of focusing either on parental intention or the child’s acclimatisation) should be followed – Courts should adopt a non-technical and straightforward approach to considering the child’s objections to return – It is up to the judicial authorities to ensure that the State lives up to its obligations to act expeditiously under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention – Convention proceedings should be judge-led, not party-driven, and judges should not hesitate to use their authority to expedite proceedings

Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Case remitted to lower court

1 child wrongfully retained at age 5 – National of Croatia and Germany – Married parents– Father national of Croatia and Germany – Mother national of Croatia – Joint custody according to the German Civil Code and under Croatian law – Child lived in Germany until December2015 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Croatia on 22 March 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Croatia on 30 May 2016 - The Court granted the appeal, set aside the first instance judgment and remitted the case for a new trial to the court of first instance – Main issues: Rights of Custody, Brussels IIa Regulation –The first instance court should have applied the Brussels II a Regulation, including its requirement for return to be ordered in Art. 13(1)(b) cases in which it has been established that adequate arrangements have been made to secure the protection of the child upon his return.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The court rejected the Beschwerde appeal against the decision and ordered the return of the children.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return refused

The Supreme Court (third instance) determined that the children’s habitual residence had changed from the United States to Denmark during the period in which the father consented to them being in Denmark (December 2010 - February 2013). By the time that the father had opposed the children's continued residence in Denmark they were habitually resident there therefore not unlawfully retained. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the retention was not wrongful and that the children should not be returned to their father in the United States.

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

Return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal to Panama was considered wrongful and the grave risk exception of Article 13(1)(b) raised by the mother was not established.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return ordered

The court ordered the return of the child to the USA.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed. The removal was wrongful and the exceptions of the Convention inapplicable.

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

Appeal dismissed and return of older sibling ordered; his removal had been wrongful and the Article 13(1)(b) exception had not been established.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Return ordered

Wrongful removal of a 12-year old child – Custody rights were exercised by the child’s aunt and her husband – The child lived in Costa Rica since he was 2 years old until February 2019 – Return ordered – Main Issues: habitual residence; rights of custody; jurisdiction issues – The habitual residence of the child is where his centre of life is, irrespective of the child’s nationality – Even though the mother had parental authority over the child, the rights of custody were exercised by the child’s aunt and her husband, and thus removal was wrongful – Return proceedings are not aimed at determining the parent’s ability to take care of and raise the child.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of a child when she was 4 years old - Trinidadian - Trinidadian parents – Joint custody but primary and residential custody with the mother - Child lived in the United States for 2 years and 4 months until she was removed and wrongfully retained in Trinidad as from 15 July 2017 – The return application was filed before a Trinidadian Family Court on 28 November 2017 – Appeal dismissed, return ordered - Main issues: habitual residence, removal and retention, grave risk, procedural matters – The child’s habitual residence was found to be in the U.S. because that was the mother’s place of residence and the girl had lived there for a considerable time - Removal had not been wrongful since the father had a temporary timesharing order but retention was since it breached the mother’s right of custody – The exception in Article 13(1)(b) was not granted as mere financial discomfort was not grave enough