Case Law Search

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed, order refusing return upheld. Although the child's retention was wrongful, the father had acquiesced. 

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was habitually resident in Israel on the relevant date.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return refused

Retention wrongful but return refused; the father had consented to the relocation of the children to Israel.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the District Court; the trial court had erred in its conclusions on habitual residence, actual exercise of custody rights and consent.

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.

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Principal appeal inadmissible. The father was concealing his real address, thereby nullifying his appeal.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child (UK national) removed from Singapore to Japan ― Parents married in 2010, living together mostly in Singapore and briefly in Japan ― Father Singaporean national, mother Indian national ― Divorce in 2014 ― Father provided with access right, Mother with right to primarily care for the child and freely relocate with the child to Japan ― Mother went to Japan with the child and returned to Singapore in 2014 ― Failed access, Father sought a modification of the relocation clause and the modality of access ― Mother definitively removed the child to Japan in 2015 ― Assistance of the Central Authority of Japan revoked in 2016 ― The father filed a petition for the child’s return to the Osaka Family Court in 2016 ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal dismissed and return refused by the Osaka High Court in 2016 ― Main issues: Habitual residence of the child ― Rights of custody of the father or the Singaporean court.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed and return refused; the removal was not wrongful and the child was in any event settled in his new environment.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Non-Convention Issues

Retention of the elder child wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions proved to the standard required under the Convention. Retention of the younger child not wrongful as she had only ever been habitually resident in England. Return ordered under common law rules.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The complaint appeal was rejected and it was once again ordered that the child be returned. No evidence was found that the child’s wellbeing was in danger due to the fact, that the father lost custody of his other daughter because of sexual abuse and his alleged paedophilic tendencies.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return upheld. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions raised was applicable.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings

Return refused

2 children (twins) wrongfully removed at age 3 - Nationals of Canada and the United States of America - Married parents - Father national of the United States of America - Mother national of Canada - Joint custody - Children lived in the United States of America until October 2013 - Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Manitoba on February 2014 - Return refused - Main issues: consent to removal, Art 13(1) (b) grave risk exception to return, undertakings - Consent and acquiescence, within the meaning of Art. 13(1)(a), must be given “their plain, ordinary meaning”, and evidence to establish consent or acquiescence must be “clear and cogent” - The provision by one parent of time-limited travel consent is insufficient to prove that the parent consented to the removal or retention - Exceptionally, return may be refused under Art. 13(1)(b) if there is compelling evidence of severe long-standing and escalating physical and psychological harm inflicted on the taking parent and the children

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed, return refused. The retention was wrongful but several exceptions applicable.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The retention was wrongful and the exceptions raised inapplicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

On appeal, the lower instance decision of the Osaka Family Court was upheld and the Osaka High Court ordered the return of the children, C and D, from Japan to France. The Court rejected the father’s argument that the return of the children should be refused because the mother had not exercised her custody rights and because of the children’s views.

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

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Return refused

Return refused; the father had acquiesced in terms of Article 13(1)(a).

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Rights of Access - Art. 21 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; on the basis that the father was prepared to contemplate the children remaining in New Zealand if he could have satisfactory access in the United States.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) had not been met to show that the father had consented.