Case Law Search

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

Application dismissed

The Court dismissed the return application.

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

Return refused

The court found that the father acquiesced in the children remaining in Canada, and refused to order the return of the children under the the Article 13(a) exception.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Two children wrongfully removed at ages nine and seven – Married parents – Shared parental custody – Children lived in Spain until 5 February 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 17 February 2016 –Application dismissed – Main issue(s): Habitual residence - is understood to mean the actual centre of the child's life, which is determined by the factual circumstances; Consent - the departure of the spouse does not require any approval by the other; the only thing requiring approval is the change of the children's place of residence abroad; Grave risk - must be interpreted restrictively: meaning a serious danger, initial language and reintegration difficulties typically do not constitute a serious danger.

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.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

1 child allegedly retained at age 6 months – National of the US Father national of US – Mother national of Canada – Father gave open-ended consent to mother to travel with the child to Canada – Child lived in United States for first 42 days of life – Application for return filed with the courts of Canada in December 2017 – The return decision of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court was appealed to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal where the application was dismissed – Main issues: habitual residence – the Court of Appeal applied the “hybrid approach” to determine the habitual residence of the child and found the child to be habitually resident in Nova Scotia.

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

Return ordered

The Court found that the retention of the children in South Africa was wrongful and ordered their return to New Zealand.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal had proper grounds to hold that the retention was wrongful, and had observed correctly that the father had acquiesced in the child's residence in France.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, but there was a grave risk that a return would expose the child to psychological harm and place him in an intolerable situation.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return ordered

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

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.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the trial judge had not erred in the exercise of his discretion in making a return order notwithstanding having found the children to be settled in their new environment and that they objected to a return.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return ordered. The child's removal was wrongful and the exception of Article 13 inapplicable.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the father had not consented to the relocation of his children to England.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered.  The removal was wrongful; the children were habitually resident in Spain on the relevant date and consent had not been established.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained at age 2 - Married parents - Father national of the United States of America - Mother national of Canada - Child lived in the United States of America until 2013 - Application for return filed in 2013 - Return ordered - Main issue: Habitual residence, acquiescence and the Art.13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return - The application of the Art. 13(1)(b) exception requires the child’s exposure to a high degree, intensity and frequency of physical or psychological abuse - A return order that does not deliver the child and parent directly to the left-behind parent upon return diminishes the risk of incidents of domestic abuse occurring, while ensuring that the appropriate forum adjudicates the merits of custody and access issues

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully removed at age 13 - Divorced parents - Father had been granted custody - Child lived in Germany until March 2010 - Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Germany on 7 June 2010 - Return refused - Main issues: Rights of custody - The parent who issued the return request had not been exercising his custody rights at the time of removal, and therefore the removal could not be considered wrongful within the meaning of the 1980 Child Abduction Hague Convention

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

2 children wrongfully removed (born in 2005 and 2007) - Separated parents - The Purvian courts had effectively granted temporary custody to the mother on 21 November 2013, and then to the father on 1 October 2014 (following the removal)  - Children lived in Peru until 20 February 2014 - Application for return filed with the District Court on 17 February 2015 - Return ordered subject to undertakings - Main issues: rights of custody, Art.13(1)(b) "grave risk" exception to return, undertakings - A very severe degree of psychological abuse is sufficient to conclude that the Art. 13(1)(b) "grave risk" exception to return under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention applies, even in cases in which there is very little or no evidence of physical abuse

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The mother's allegation of grave risk was not found to be proved.

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.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Return ordered; the "grave risk of harm" exception had not been established.