Case Law Search

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; by a 2:1 majority the Court found that Article 13(1)(a) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had been activated, one judge found that this was on the basis of consent, the other as a result of acquiescence.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of a girl when she was 4 years old – Guatemalan and American – separated parents – the girl was born in the United States, as proved by her birth certificate – the Central Authority of Guatemala filed the return request before court in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala – appeal dismissed, return ordered – main issues: habitual residence; removal and retention; settlement of the child; interpretation of the Convention – the habitual residence of the child before the wrongful retention was in the United States, as evidenced by her birth certificate and medical records – the wrongful retention took place when the father did not return her to the United States on the agreed date after her holiday with the grandparents, to which the mother had consented – the immediate return ought to be ordered since the child had spent less than a year in the requested State – the HCCH Convention on Child Abduction does not require the conduction of socioeconomical or psychological studies on the parents in order to make a decision on return

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and the exceptions inapplicable.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal declared inadmissible. The existence of a valid consent does not generally raise any important question of law which may be referred to the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof). Nor had the Court of Appeal, in the case at hand, made any key misinterpretations requiring correction by the Supreme Court.

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed and partially founded. The child's return to Germany was ordered.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

2 children wrongfully removed at ages 9 and 7 – Nationals of Korea – Married parents – Father national of The Republic of Korea– Mother national of The Republic of Korea– Parents had joint custody – Children lived in Japan until 28 June 2016 – Application for return filed with the court of The Republic of Korea on 21 April 2017 – Return refused – Main issue: Article 13(1)(b) – a “grave risk” includes cases where the child is at risk of psychological harm due to frequent violence committed against the other parent.

Non-Convention Issues

Return refused

The return of the child was barred as a consequence of his pending asylum appeal.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

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.

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.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Leave to appeal refused and return application dismissed; there had been no wrongful removal because the father did not have rights of custody at the moment of the removal.

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

Return ordered with undertakings offered

3 children wrongfully removed at age 7 – Father national of the United Kingdom and Canada – Mother national of the United Kingdom and Canada – Both parents had rights of custody under the law of Scotland – Children lived in the United Kingdom until August 2009 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of the Scotland on 20 October 2009 – Return ordered – Main issue(s): Rights of custody – Art. 3 – Father had rights of custody under the law of Scotland; there was no court order restricting his rights as a parent – Removal & Retention – Arts 3 and 12 – Children wrongfully removed, in breach of the father’s custody rights and without his consent. The father was exercising his rights despite the child protection investigation – Grave Risk – Art. 13(1)(b) –There is no grave risk. Social service agencies and court in Scotland will protect the children upon their return – Undertakings – Undertakings imposed to assist the return and to protect the children in the transitional period before the court in Scotland takes over. 

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Return refused

One child wrongfully retained at age 5 – National of Germany - Divorced parents – Father national of Germany – Mother national of Russia – Parents had joint custody – Child lived in Germany until 13 July 2017  – Application for return was filed with the Court on 30 August 2018 – Return refused – Main issue(s): Article 13(1)(b), grave risk due to violence from the father; Article 12, child settled in new environment.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

The Court unanimously ruled that Hungary had breached Article 8 of the ECHR where domestic courts failed to act expeditiously in the proceedings to return the child and the national authorities had failed to take adequate and effective measures for the enforcement of the return order. It also awarded the father compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Child (US and Japanese national) born in 2016 in the US ― Father a US national, mother a Japanese national ― Unmarried parents ― The father has been using cannabis and exercised violence against the mother ― Parenting arrangement between the parents based on joint custody and alternate stay of the child every week ― Approved by the US court in October 2018 ― Mother took the child to Japan with the father’s consent for three weeks in December 2018 ― Mother never returned and started to retain the child in Japan early January 2019 ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to the Tokyo Family Court in July 2019 ― The mother attempted suicide ― Return application dismissed ― Appeal allowed and return ordered by the Tokyo High Court in January 2020 ― Main issue: Grave risk for the child to be returned.

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

The Court unanimously ruled that Romania had breached Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to thoroughly assess the best interests of the child and to give the father the opportunity to present his case. It also awarded the father compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.

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

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