Case Law Search

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and non-return order upheld; the retention of the children was wrongful but the applicant father was found to have both consented to and acquiesced in the children remaining in New Zealand.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | 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)

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions had been established.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was not wrongful for the child was not habitually resident in Ontario on the relevant date.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal of the child to England was not wrongful under Greek law.

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

Return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; even though the parents had no legal status to work or to remain on any permanent basis in the United States of America, the children were habitually resident in California immediately before the wrongful removal.

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

Challenge to legality upheld; the father had not acquiesced in the retention of the children, therefore the case was remitted to the Cour d'Appel de Paris.

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) had not been met.

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.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the mother had met the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to show the child would face a grave risk of psychological harm if returned, and, under Article 13(1)(a), that the father had consented to the removal of the child.

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the child had never acquired a habitual residence in Belgium.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful the child having become habitually resident in Germany following the father's acquiescence in the initial wrongful removal.

One child wrongfully removed at age 3 – National of Slovakia – Unmarried parents– Father national of Slovakia – Mother national of Slovakia – Joint rights of custody – Child lived in Slovakia until September 2010 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Hong Kong on 22 August 2011 –Return refused – Main issue(s): Article 13(1)(a) acquiescence - the Father’s words and inaction were inconsistent with the fundamental objective of the Convention to secure a prompt return, and he was held to have acquiesced. Article 13(1)(b) – due to the child’s instable background and now being settled in his new environment, there was a grave risk that he would be placed in an intolerable situation if an order for return was made.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained in Japan ― National of Singapore and Japan ― Married parents ― Father national of Singapore – Mother national of Japan ― Child lived in Singapore until 2016 ― Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Singapore in 2016 ― Petition for return filed with the courts of Japan in 2017 ― Return ordered ― Main issues: acquiescence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – There is no grave risk in ordering the return of the child in cases involving domestic violence between the parents where a protection order is in place in the requesting State and where there is no evidence that any violence has been committed against the child ― It cannot be said that a parent has not actually exercised rights of custody at the time of removal if he did not know the whereabouts of the child at that time  ― A parent has not approved of or acquiesced in the retention if he filed a return application with the Central Authority of the requesting State about one month after coming to know of the removal, and with the courts of the requested State almost one year after the removal, respectively.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child removed to Japan ― National of Algeria and Japan ― Married parents ― Father an Algerian national, Mother a Japanese national ― Parents married in France in 1998 ― Child born in 2004 and lived in France until 2015 ― Mother removed and has retained the child in Japan ― Petition for return of the child filed with the Osaka Family Court ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal to the Osaka High Court dismissed ― Main issues: Father’s Consent or Acquiescence ― Grave Risk for the Child ― Child’s objection

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

Return ordered

Return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions invoked applied.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed and case remitted to trial court; the trial court had failed to give due consideration to the child's status as a refugee when determining the return application. Furthermore, there had been procedural failings in the conduct of the trial and the exceptions to return had not been investigated properly.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

The Belgian courts have no jurisdiction: the existence of acquiescence by the father in the child's wrongful retention precludes the international jurisdiction of the Belgian courts on the basis of Article 10 of the Brussels II a Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003).

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters