Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the children were habitually resident in New Zealand on the relevant date.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Unanimous: infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); award of damages on the basis of Article 41 of the ECHR.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but the Supreme Court found that the level of harm required by Article 13(1)(b) had been established.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

By a majority the Court declared the application to be inadmissible, on the basis of it being manifestly ill-founded; the Turkish authorities had not disregarded their obligations under Article 6 of the ECHR (right to fair trial) or violated the right to respect for family life guaranteed under Article 8 of the ECHR.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

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

Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal had duly applied the provisions of the Brussels II a Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003).

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the trial judge had erred in exercising his discretion after having found the Article 13(2) exception to have been made out.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but acquiescence had been established to the standard required under the Convention.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal dismissed, 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.

Human Rights - Art. 20

Legal challenge rejected; the removal was wrongful and Article 20 was inapplicable.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the trial judge had erred in his interpretation of Article 13(2). Reassessing the nature of the objections of the eldest child the Inner House concluded that they were not of sufficient weight to activate the exception. The eldest child being returned the younger siblings would therefore be returned also.

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

Legal challenge upheld and new order issued for the child to be returned; the removal was wrongful and the conditions necessary for the application of Article 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had not been met.

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

Return ordered

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Return ordered

The father's appeal was dismissed and the daughter's return ordered. The mother's appeal was dismissed and the son's return refused at this time.

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

Return refused

1 child wrongfully retained at age 10 - National of El Salvador and Canada - Married parents - Father national of El Salvador - Mother national of Canada - Father exercised rights of custody for about 10 years, mother obtained custody in May 2012 - Child lived in El Salvador until November 2011 - Application for return filed with the Provincial Court in July 2012 - Return refused under Article 13(2) - Main issues: Art 13(1) (b) grave risk exception to return, objection of the child to return - Abuse of one parent by another can only be a relevant consideration for the Art. 13(1)(b) exception if the child is “placed in the midst of an abusive relationship” - An assessment of whether a child was placed in an intolerable situation due to the administration of corporal punishment should account for the range of generally accepted disciplining practices in the relevant social context - The factors to be taken into consideration when assessing whether a child has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of her views include: level of cognitive functioning, capacity for logical and rational reasoning and nuanced evaluation of different circumstances - Decisions not to order return under Article 13(2) should account for the policy considerations underlying the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention 

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Case remitted to lower court

1 child wrongfully removed at age 13 - Divorced parents - Shared custody - Child lived in the United States until June 2012 - Return application filed with the Central Authority of the United States - Case remitted to a lower court for substantive determination - Main issues: objections of the child to return, Art 13(1) (b) grave risk exception to return - The child’s objection to return should be assessed independently of other exceptions to return, and may constitute sufficient grounds for a refusal to order return of the child

Return ordered

One child wrongfully removed at age 6 – National of Spain – Father national of Bolivia – Mother national of Colombia and Spain – Mother primary carer and father exercising rights of contact, including staying contact – Child lived in Spain until September 2018  – Return ordered – Main issue: COVID-19 – due to travel restrictions between the UK and Spain it was acknowledged that a safe return may take more time to organise than usual, but that it should take place as soon as reasonably practicable.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused to order the return of the child. 

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

2 children wrongfully retained at ages 11 and 8 - Nationals of Canada - Married parents - Father national of Canada - Mother national of Canada - Father transferred physical custody in a notarised letter to the mother for the period April 2013 to August 2014, to allow the children to enroll in a  Canadian school - Children lived in Germany until April 2013 - Application for return filed with the Superior Court of Justice (Family Court Branch) in June 2014 - Return ordered - Main issues: habitual residence, rights of custody, objections of the child to return - A parent cannot unilaterally change the habitual residence of a child during a time-limited period of consensual stay in another State agreed to by the other parent - Contemplation of an extension of such a period of consensual stay does not defeat its time-limited nature - Evidence of the child settling in his new environment is irrelevant if the application for return is brought within one year of the removal or retention - Where rights of custody have been transferred by one parent to another for the sole purpose of enrolling children in school in a given State, the parent who transferred those rights exercises them when the taking parent refuses to return the child, or would have exercised them but for the removal or retention - A child’s objection to return that is unsubstantial or merely expresses a preference for one place over another is insufficient grounds for refusing to order return under Art. 13(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention

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

The City Court (first instance) determined that the child was living in Poland before the removal and that a return to Poland would not harm the child. Therefore, the removal/retention was wrongful and that the child should go back to the mother in Poland.

The Eastern High Court (second instance) upheld the decision.