Case Law Search

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration made that the removal of the child was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. The father was deemed to hold and to be actually exercising rights of custody.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application inadmissible; There was an objective and reasonable justification for the difference in treatment between married and unmarried fathers with regard to the automatic acquisition of parental rights.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the child was habitually resident in Ontario and his retention was in breach of the mother's rights of custody.

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

Return ordered

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration made; the retention was wrongful as the children were habitually resident in Australia at the relevant date.

Article 15 Decision or Determination | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, refusal of Article 15 declaration confirmed

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; there had been a wrongful removal and neither Article 13(1)(b) nor Article 20 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.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Article 15 declaration refused

Article 15 declaration refused; no rights of custody had been breached when the children were removed.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the removal of the children breached rights of custody vested in the English court seized of the pending custody proceedings.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the removal was wrongful.

Article 15 Decision or Determination

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Article 15 Decision or Determination | Rights of Access - Art. 21

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful for it had not led to the breach of any rights of custody.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Undertakings

Return ordered with undertakings offered

4 children removed at ages 13, 6, 5 & 2 – Unmarried parents – Court found that both parents had custody rights – The children lived in United States (North Dakota) until September 29, 2016 – Application for return filed with courts of Canada (Saskatchewan) in May 2017 – Return of 3 children ordered in June 2017 – Main issues: Article 3 (custody) – In the absence of proved foreign law, the Court applied Saskatchewan law and found that the father had custody rights with respect to his 3 biological children at the time of the removal – Undertakings – Father provided undertaking not to enforce US chasing order before a certain date to avoid children being forcibly removed from their mother by the police. 

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

2 children wrongfully removed (aged 5 and 8 at the time of the decision) – Nationals of Brazil and Argentina – Divorced parents – Father national of Argentina, Venezuela, and Brazil – Mother national of Argentina – By a homologated conciliation agreement of 5 June 2014, the father had custody for a period of four months and thereafter the parents were to have joint custody – Children lived in Brazil until July 2014 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Brazil in October 2014 – A decision or determination under Art. 15 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was obtained - Application dismissed – Main issues: custody rights and acquiescence – “Rights of custody” has an autonomous meaning under the Convention, which crucially includes the right to determine the child’s place of residence – This right may be attributed to a parent by the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal, as well as by the context, structure and content of an agreement on custody homologated in that State – “Acquiescence is a question of the actual subjective intention of the wronged parent, and not of the outside world’s perception of her intentions”

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the child objected to going back, was of sufficient age and maturity, and the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in upholding the child's objections.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful removal of two girls when they were 10 and 6 years old – Married parents – The girls lived in Spain until July 2016 – Appeal allowed, return ordered – Main issues: Removal and retention, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, objections of the child to a return, matters relating to return – There was no concluding evidence that the mother had consented to a change in the girls’ habitual residence to Argentina – There was no grave risk that returning to Spain would cause psychological or physical harm to the girls – The girls did not strongly resist against or oppose returning to Spain, they only stated a mere preference for continuing to live in Argentina – The circumstances of the case had to be taken into account and the COVID-19 health emergency context as well in order to make return immediate and safe.

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

Appeal allowed and case remitted to a different judge of the Ontario Court of Justice to re-determine the Article 13(1)(b) issues.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dissmissed; the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts agreed that no custody rights of the father had been breached and refused to return the boys to Hungary.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Article 15 declaration refused

Article 15 declaration refused; the removal of the child was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.