Case Law Search

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

Return refused

Return refused; the eldest child objected to being returned and the court exercised its discretion not to return her. The other children were not returned as to separate them from their sister would place them in an intolerable situation.

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

Return refused

Challenge to legality dismissed; 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)

Return ordered

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

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

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the mother's constitutional rights had not been violated by the application of the Convention, nor had the lower courts erred in their application of the Convention: the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was in breach of rights of custody and was therefore wrongful.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was wrongful but the child had become settled in her new environment. The return was therefore refused.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the children were not habitually resident in Greece at the date of the removal.

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

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal rejected on a majority verdict; application dismissed. The majority found the children to be habitually resident in the US at the date of the retention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was wrongful but the conditions for application of the exception of Article 13(1)(b) were met.

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

Return refused

Removal wrongful and return refused; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; the child was found to be settled in her new environment in accordance with the terms of Article 12(2).

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

Return refused

Return refused; retention wrongful, but the objections of the child were upheld.

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

Return ordered

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

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.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The complaint appeal was broadly rejected and it was once again ordered that the daughter be returned; the deadline for this was extended. It was not possible to establish any reason to believe that the child’s wellbeing would be endangered in the event that she were returned.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

The complaint appeal was approved and the Applicant’s application for the children to be returned was rejected. It was ruled that there was a grave risk of physical or mental harm to both of the children, meaning that the exception set out in Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention applied.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

The complaint appeal was approved and the father’s application for a return was refused. The court ruled that the child’s wellbeing would be endangered were he to be returned.

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

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.