Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return refused

The court held that the child’s habitual residence remained in Hong Kong. In light of this decision, the retention of the child in Hong Kong could not be considered wrongful. 

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters |

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Lawful removal of a 2-year-old girl – Argentine national – Married parents – American father – Argentine mother – The girl lived in Argentina until April 2017, when her family travelled to the United States. She stayed there and then returned to Argentina in September that same year – The father requested her return before the Argentine courts – Appeal dismissed, return refused – Main Issues: habitual residence, removal and retention – The habitual residence of the girl was in Argentina because she had created no stable or permanent bonds in the United States that allowed for a determination that her place of living was there – The removal was lawful since it had been authorised by court in accordance with Argentine law.

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

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had been proved.

Return refused

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Return ordered; the "grave risk of harm" exception had not been established.

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

Return refused

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

Return refused

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Return refused

Return refused; the applicant father was found to have consented to the child living in South Africa permanently and the child would face a grave risk of harm if returned to the applicant.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the District Court; the trial court had erred in its legal interpretation of the concept of habitual residence.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in another Contracting State at the date of the retention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application dismissed

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Appeal dismissed, removal wrongful and return ordered with undertakings offered; none of the exceptions argued had been proved to the requisite standard.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal of the child was wrongful as it was in breach of the father's rights of custody and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate a grave risk of harm had not been met.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal upheld in part, return ordered subject to undertakings / a mirror order being entered in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The retention was wrongful and the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out. Furthermore, the Convention was found to be consistent with the South African Constitution.

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.