Case Law Search

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

Challenge to legality dismissed; the retention was wrongful and the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return ordered with undertakings offered

Return ordered with undertakings offered; the removal was in breach of the father's actually exercised rights of custody.

Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal allowed; the decision of the court of appeal was wrong in law and quashed. The return application was remitted to a lower court for re-hearing.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

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

Procedural Matters

Appeal against the provisional stay of execution of the return order dismissed.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Return refused

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; more than one year had passed between the retention and the filing of the legal action and it was not contested that the children were settled in their new environment. 

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

Appeal allowed; case remitted to the Court of first instance for it to decide on the matter of the child's habitual residence at the time of the removal.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The exception of grave risk of danger could not apply unless the US authorities denied the mother a visa enabling her to enter and remain in the United States of America until a custody ruling.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; decision ordering the children's return upheld, having considered with reasonable cause that none of the exceptions was applicable.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the retention had been wrongful and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Procedural Matters

Removal wrongful and return ordered. However, the subsequent concealment of the child for eight years made enforcement of the original return order impossible.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and non-return order confirmed; the boy objected to a return and the standard required under Article 13(2) had been reached.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

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

Return ordered with regards to the two younger children subject to undertakings; the removal was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) of the Convention to indicate that the children would face a grave risk of harm had not been met. Application dismissed with regard to the oldest child.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; retention wrongful as the children were habitually resident in Australia on the relevant date.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Issues Relating to Return |

Return ordered with undertakings offered

One child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 5 and a half – National of Ukraine and the United Kingdom – Father national of the United Kingdom and South Africa – Mother national of Hungary and Ukraine – Child lived in Ukraine in the mother’s custody with regular contact with the father – Following Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022 child and Mother move to England In April 2022 – Mother plans to return to Ukraine in Summer 2022 – Father obtains Prohibited Steps Order from English Court - Application for return issued on 29 July 2022 – Main issues: habitual residence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – risk of exposure to war – risk of loss of relationship with father due to alleged closure of court system and mothers hostility to father – A child’s retained roots in Ukraine support his habitual residence remains in the Ukraine – The risk faced by the child upon return to Ukraine failed to meet the threshold of ‘grave harm’ – the region was not subject to active hostility and life continued as normal – the court system was functioning – mother promoted contact – undertakings reduced any risk below grave risk threshold. – Return ordered