Case Law Search

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

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had been proved.

Return refused

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

Return refused

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return refused

Return refused; the applicant father was found to have consented to the child living in South Africa permanently and the child would face a grave risk of harm if returned to the applicant.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had been proved.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal had breached the father's rights of custody, and there was in-sufficient evidence to indicate consent. In addition the standard required under Article 13(1)(b), to indicate that the children would face a grave risk of harm, had not been met.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the retention of the children had been wrongful, but a grave risk of harm had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful as it breached the father's rights of custody.

Return ordered

Return ordered; the State was liable for travel costs involved in the return but the court reserved the right to recover some or all of those costs from the mother.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; 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) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Issues Relating to Return |

Return ordered with undertakings offered

One child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 5 and a half – National of Ukraine and the United Kingdom – Father national of the United Kingdom and South Africa – Mother national of Hungary and Ukraine – Child lived in Ukraine in the mother’s custody with regular contact with the father – Following Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022 child and Mother move to England In April 2022 – Mother plans to return to Ukraine in Summer 2022 – Father obtains Prohibited Steps Order from English Court - Application for return issued on 29 July 2022 – Main issues: habitual residence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – risk of exposure to war – risk of loss of relationship with father due to alleged closure of court system and mothers hostility to father – A child’s retained roots in Ukraine support his habitual residence remains in the Ukraine – The risk faced by the child upon return to Ukraine failed to meet the threshold of ‘grave harm’ – the region was not subject to active hostility and life continued as normal – the court system was functioning – mother promoted contact – undertakings reduced any risk below grave risk threshold. – Return ordered

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed, return refused. The child was settled in its new environment.

Non-Convention Issues | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered

Return ordered.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and no exception raised was applicable.

Non-Convention Issues

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered.