Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

1 child allegedly wrongfully removed at age 13 – National of Canada – Divorced parents – Parents have joint custody and mother has primary care – Child lived in Arizona, USA until August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Alberta, Canada on May 18, 2018 – Application dismissed – Main issue: Art 13(1)(b) – It would be an intolerable situation to return the child to Arizona as neither parent resides there.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

1 child wrongfully retained at 8 months old – National of Canada – Married parents – Father national of Canada and Poland – Mother national of Poland – Child lived in Canada  – Application for return filed with the courts of Poland on 31 October 2011 – Return refused before application to ECtHR on 23 December 2013 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 9,000 awarded in damages – The reasoning of the domestic courts in applying Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Child Abduction Hague Convention disregarded the relevant elements necessary for assessing the best interests of the child within the strict application of the Article

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed; return refused.

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

Return ordered

2 children wrongfully removed at ages 11 and 13 – Nationals of Portugal –divorced parents  – Father national of Portugal – Mother national of Portugal – Custody rights disputed – Children lived in Portugal until January 2013  – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Portugal in April 2013 – Return ordered – Main issues: Article 13(1)(b) – Grave risk of harm – even though the children did not seem to have a good relationship with their father there was not found to be a serious risk of harm should they return to Portugal and the exception did not apply; Article 13 – Child’s objections - the children’s opinions primarily had to be regarded as a desire to live with their mother, rather than as resistance to returning to Portugal and so the exception did not apply; Article 20 – Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – the court held that it was consistent with human rights for the children to be returned and that the exception did not apply.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

4 children wrongfully removed to Japan ― Parents married in 2001 and living in the United States ― Father and mother nationals of Japan ― 5 children ― The parents separated and had been living apart since 2011 ― The mother obtained a restraining order against the father for the third time in 2012, along with a provisional custody order over the 5 children ― The father removed 4 of their 5 children via Canada to Japan in 2014 ― The parents obtained a divorce decree in the United States in 2014, which declared the mother as the sole custodian ― The mother filed an application for return with the courts of Japan in 2014 ― The Tokyo Family Court ordered return ― The father filed an appeal ― Main issues: No objections of the children ― No grave risk in ordering return of the child.

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.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Removal wrongful and return ordered; Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Issues Relating to Return | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal dismissed and return ordered, subject to undertakings. The retention was wrongful; the grave risk defence under Article 13(1)(b) had not been established. There was no evidence to substantiate the mother's allegations of mistreatment at the hands of the father.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(1)(a) and Article 13(1)(b) had both been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 7 – Unmarried, separated parents – Joint parental authority, mother primary carer – Child lived in France until 31 December 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: Article 13(1)(b): a decision of refusal to return a child should be based on the risk of 'exposure' to harm. Where a fellow signatory to the 1980 Convention has found that there was no such grave risk of exposure to harm it would be rare to find the opposite. 

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

Return ordered

The court ordered the return of the children to the State of Connecticut, United States of America, within two weeks of the order becoming final and binding.

Interpretation of the Convention | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Return refused

The application for return was dismissed. There was enough evidence to show that there was a grave risk of harm if to the children if they returned to Israel. The judge refused to order the return based on Article 13(1)(b) and Article 20.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Two children allegedly wrongfully removed at ages 2 and 3 – Father national of New Zealand – Mother national of Australia – Mother the primary carer of the children – Children lived in New Zealand until May 2019 – Appeal allowed and return refused – Main issues: Article 13(1)(b) - Though New Zealand has sophisticated systems in place to protect victims of family violence, it was established that the children’s parents had persistently thwarted attempts by similar agencies in Australia to keep the mother and children safe. There was no evidence which suggests that any conditions would be effective ; COVID-19 – despite the fact travel bans were in place between Australia and New Zealand, as the case was based on a request by New Zealand to return the children, the court proceeded on the basis that the children and the mother were still able to leave Australia and enter New Zealand. If the court had decided to order a return to New Zealand they would have required further submissions concerning the effect on the children and the mother in the present crisis.

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

Return ordered

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

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal allowed and return ordered subject to undertakings. The removal was wrongful and any potential harm to the child from a return could be minimized by the father's compliance with the conditions set and the child could otherwise be protected by the English authorities.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return refused. The removal was wrongful but the exceptions in Articles 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) and 13(2) had been made out to the standard required under the Convention. In addition the father's lack of good faith barred him from receiving the court's assistance.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Challenge against the legality of the appellate judgment dismissed and return order confirmed; the retention was wrongful and Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out to the standard required under the Convention.