Case Law Search

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Undertakings | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10 | Procedural Matters

Return refused

Return refused; more than a year had elapsed before the commencement of return proceedings and the child was found to be settled in her new environment.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal granted and return ordered.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return refused

Return refused; the retention was wrongful, but the child objected to a return to the UK and the standard required under Article 13(2) had been established.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the children were no longer habitually resident in Australia on the relevant date.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused. The removal was wrongful but more than 12 months had elapsed prior to the issue of proceedings and further to Article 12(2) the children were now settled in their new environment.

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

Return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention.

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

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

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

Return ordered with undertakings offered

2 children wrongfully retained, aged 11 and 13 on the date of the judgment - Nationals of France and Canada - Married parents - Mother national of Canada - Joint custody - Children lived in France until July 2013 - Application for return filed with the Superior Court of Quebec in October 2013 - Direct judicial communications took place - Return ordered - Main issues: consent / acquiescence, Art. 13(1) (b) grave risk exception to return, undertakings, objection of the child to return - Consent or acquiescence to the removal or retention must be clear, positive and unequivocal - The risk of the children suffering psychological harm by returning without the taking parent is mitigated by arranging for appropriate measures to protect the taking parent to be in place upon return, through administrative and judicial co-operation with the authorities of the requesting State - Return may be ordered if the child is mainly concerned about being removed from the taking parent, rather than being opposed to returning to the requested State or fearing the left-behind parent

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The Supreme Court rejected the mother’s appeal.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

2 children wrongfully removed (aged 5 and 8 at the time of the decision) – Nationals of Brazil and Argentina – Divorced parents – Father national of Argentina, Venezuela, and Brazil – Mother national of Argentina – By a homologated conciliation agreement of 5 June 2014, the father had custody for a period of four months and thereafter the parents were to have joint custody – Children lived in Brazil until July 2014 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Brazil in October 2014 – A decision or determination under Art. 15 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was obtained - Application dismissed – Main issues: custody rights and acquiescence – “Rights of custody” has an autonomous meaning under the Convention, which crucially includes the right to determine the child’s place of residence – This right may be attributed to a parent by the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal, as well as by the context, structure and content of an agreement on custody homologated in that State – “Acquiescence is a question of the actual subjective intention of the wronged parent, and not of the outside world’s perception of her intentions”

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; none of the exceptions raised by the mother was applicable.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; regard had to be paid to the terms of the provisional order of the Czech District Court permitting the children to live with the mother in Sweden.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

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

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

Return ordered

Return ordered.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

One child (Russian national) born in 2014 resided in Russia ― Father and mother Russian nationals ― Parents married in 2014 in Russia ― Parents divorced in 2016 ― Mother took the child to Japan in October 2017 and settled there following her remarriage ― A ne exeat order of the Russian court was partly set aside by confirming the child’s temporary residence in Japan in January 2019 ― Central Authority of Japan assisted the Father with a return application in July 2018 ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to the Tokyo Family Court in October 2018 ― Return ordered ― Appeal dismissed by the Tokyo High Court in February 2019 ― Main issues: rights of custody and grave risk.

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).

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful removal of 5-year-old child - American – unmarried parents, they split up -  the girl lived in California with her mother until she was removed by her father to Mexico – the return request was filed before the Central Authority in the United States of America – appeal allowed, return ordered – main issues: settlement of the child; procedural matters; interpretation of the Convention – the settlement of the child exception was not granted since the mother had filed for return within a year from the wrongful conduct – the Supreme Court held that Mexico lacks a special proceeding for child abduction cases – the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention safeguards the best interests of the child and is compatible with the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States and the different international treaties signed and ratified by Mexico.

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) | Procedural Matters |

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of two girls when they were 8 and 11 years old – Uruguayan & Swedish – Unmarried parents – Uruguayan father – Uruguayan mother – Joint custody – The girls lived in the Kingdom of Norway until January 2019 – Return proceedings were commenced before Uruguayan courts on 27 May 2019 – Return ordered – Main issues: removal and retention, consent, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, objections of the child to a return, procedural matters – Retention was wrongful because it violated the father’s actually-exercised right of custody when it took place – There was not sufficient evidence on record proving the father’s consent or acquiescence to the change in the girls’ habitual residence – None of the circumstances alleged by the mother implied a grave risk for the girls if they returned to Norway – The girls’ statements evidenced that their opinions were influenced by their mother – The child support payments fixed in the first instance court judgment were overturned because this issue is outside the scope of application of the HCCH 1996 Child Protection Convention.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return ordered

Return ordered at the date provided for by the parental agreement.