Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Canada on the relevant date.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Challenge rejected and return order confirmed. The removal was wrongful and the court of appeal had correctly found the Article 13 exceptions to be inapplicable.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Return refused

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

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was 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) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; the retention was wrongful and the grounds for exception under the Convention were not applicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; there was no retention of the child.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in the United States.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the children were habitually resident in the United States of America at the date of the alleged wrongful retention.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Two children wrongfully removed at ages nine and four – Nationals of Macedonia – Married parents – Father national of Macedonia – Mother national of Macedonia – Joint parental custody – Children lived in Austria until 28 July 2018 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Austria 5 September 2018 – Return ordered – Main issues: Effective exercise of custody and grave risk – Article 3(1)(b) must be read in the light with the Convention's concern that the original condition should be established; there is a presumption that the holder of custody has fulfilled his obligations; the grounds for exclusion are to be interpreted narrowly and only real dangers are to be taken into account in the case of Article 13(1)(b).

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.

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.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

One child wrongfully retained at age 3 – National of United Kingdom and Switzerland – Married parents – Father national of United Kingdom and Turkey – Mother national of Switzerland and Turkey – Joint parental responsibility – Child lived in the United Kingdom until 7 August 2020 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 12 April 2021 – Return refused – Main issue: Acquiescence/Consent Art.13(1)(a)] –Father’s behaviour deemed acquiescence, namely signing a residence registration, bringing child’s personal effects, transferring money, signing a divorce agreement accepting Switzerland as the place of jurisdiction.

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.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the father had consented to the relocation of the child on the basis of Article 13(1)(a).

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the child's habitual residence was in Denmark at the relevant date.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the father was to have sole possession of the children's travel documentation.

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.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

One child wrongfully removed at age 1 – National of Ukraine – Married parents – Father national of Ukraine – Mother national of Ukraine – Mother and father have joint custody –Child lived in Ukraine until 02.03.2022 –Application for return filed with the Central Authority/courts (choose!) of [State] on [date] –Return refused – Main issue(s): Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return  – [Summary of the outcome of the main contentious issue(s) The return of a child to a war zone where it could be exposed to a real threat entails a serious risk of physical or psychological harm being caused to the child.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful as the child was habitually resident in Ireland on the relevant date.