Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful as the child was habitually resident in Chile at the relevant date.

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

Return ordered with undertakings offered

Return ordered, undertakings offered; a court is not required to adjourn its proceedings to allow an investigation of a child's views.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal of the children breached the mother's rights of custody, the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) to show consent had not been met.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; the father had acquiesced in terms of Article 13(1)(a) and the court exercised its discretion not to order the return of the child.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Constitutional complaint upheld; the decision of the Higher Regional Court (OLG) had violated the parental rights of the father pursuant to German Basic Law and violated the constitutional rights of the children. The case was remitted to the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Celle.

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

Return ordered

The children were ordered to be returned on 1 August 1991, the date specified by the 1986 Separation Agreement.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal of the children was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.

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

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

Return refused

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was wrongful but Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the child had acquired a habitual residence in Germany.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was wrongful but the conditions for application of the exception of Article 13(1)(b) were met.

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

Return refused

Return refused; retention wrongful, but the objections of the child were upheld.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

The complaint appeal was approved and the Applicant’s application for the children to be returned was rejected. It was ruled that there was a grave risk of physical or mental harm to both of the children, meaning that the exception set out in Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention applied.

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

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(1)(a) and Article 13(1)(b) had both been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

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

Return ordered

The court ordered the return of the children to the State of Connecticut, United States of America, within two weeks of the order becoming final and binding.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters |

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Lawful removal of a 2-year-old girl – Argentine national – Married parents – American father – Argentine mother – The girl lived in Argentina until April 2017, when her family travelled to the United States. She stayed there and then returned to Argentina in September that same year – The father requested her return before the Argentine courts – Appeal dismissed, return refused – Main Issues: habitual residence, removal and retention – The habitual residence of the girl was in Argentina because she had created no stable or permanent bonds in the United States that allowed for a determination that her place of living was there – The removal was lawful since it had been authorised by court in accordance with Argentine law.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered