Case Law Search

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.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Switzerland at the time of the removal and the standard required under the Article 13 exceptions had not been made out.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful since the child was both habitually resident in the United States and the father had custody rights, at the time of the removal.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal had breached the father's rights of custody, and there was in-sufficient evidence to indicate consent. In addition the standard required under Article 13(1)(b), to indicate that the children would face a grave risk of harm, had not been met.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the retention of the children had been wrongful, but a grave risk of harm had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful as it breached the father's rights of custody.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the child was not habitually resident in Australia on the relevant date.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as no right of custody had been breached.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was not wrongful as the father was not exercising his rights of custody at the time of removal and therefore no rights of custody had been breached.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, removal wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in the United States on the relevant date.