Case Law Search

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) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and no exception raised was applicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the exceptions in art. 13 CLaH 80 did not apply.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

One child wrongfully retained at age 8 – National of Chile – Unmarried parents – Father national of Chile – Mother national of Chile – Agreement that the “cuidado personal” is solely attributed to the mother, but in fact it is exercised by both – Child lived in Chile until 14 August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 19 September 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: Rights of custody – Even though formally they agreed that the mother has the sole “cuidado personal” in fact both of the parents exercise it and therefore after the agreed date of return to Chile the retention was wrongful.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Two children retained in Japan ― United States nationals born in 2009 and 2012 ― Married parents living in the United States ― Father and mother nationals of the United States ― Father and children travelled to Japan from November 2018 and resided there from 2019 ― Mother visited father and children in Japan several times but did not relocate there ― Mother and fathers’ relationship deteriorated and father retained children in Japan from November 2019 ― Father instituted in-court conciliation to obtain sole custody before the Japanese courts in January 2020 ― Mother sought return of the children in the Japanese courts in February 2020 ― Japanese courts dismissed the claim as children were habitually resident in Japan ― Habitual residence determined on the grounds of the children’s close connection and integration into their social and family environment ― Limited role of the parents’ intentions in determining habitual residence ― Main issue: Habitual residence.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered, with the father ordered to pay the costs of return; the child was habitually resident in Turkey at the time of her removal and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention.

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 retention was wrongful and neither Article 13(1)(b) nor Article 13(2) had been proven to the standard required.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return ordered

Return ordered; none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention. The Australian authorities were in a position to provide for the well-being of the children, if that was required.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention of the children was wrongful and the standard required under the various exceptions raised had not been met.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; Article 13(1)(b) was not proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was wrongful but the child objected to a return and was of an appropriate age and maturity to have her views taken into account.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal had been wrongful, but Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful and neither Article 13(2) nor any of the other exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was wrongful but Articles 13(1)(b) and 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention. The return was therefore refused.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of psychological harm had not been met.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful but on the strength of the child's objection to a return to France, the court exercised its discretion under Article 13(2) not to order her return.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful and neither Article 13(1)(b) nor Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - 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

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and neither Article 13(1)(b) nor Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Undertakings | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered with undertakings offered; the removal was wrongful as the child was habitually resident in the United States at the relevant date.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the District Court had abused its discretion in declining to invoke its equitable power to hold that the father was disentitled to assert his claim in a United States District Court.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) had been met to indicate that the father had acquiesced.