Case Law Search

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.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The mother’s complaint appeal (Beschwerde) was rejected and the order for return was maintained with the specification that the child was to be returned to Spain but not necessarily to Madrid.

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.

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.

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

Return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed, the child was habitually resident in Canada. 

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 | 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.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in Australia at the time of the removal and in any event there had been no breach of actually exercised rights of custody.

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.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Best Interests of the Child

Return ordered

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Removal wrongful and return ordered; Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but a return to Portugal would expose the child to a grave risk of danger.

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

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 13 – National of Brazil – Divorced parents– Father national of Brazil – Mother national of Brazil – Joint right to determine the residence of the child. Father has custody. – Child lived in Brazil until 31 October 2014 – Application for return filed with the Courts of Switzerland on 28 April 2016 – Return refused – Main issue: Objections of the Child to a Return – Child was mature enough for its opinion to be taken into consideration which constituted a reason to refuse the return based on Article 13(2).

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.

Procedural Matters

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

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

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

1 child allegedly wrongfully removed at age 13 – National of Canada – Divorced parents – Parents have joint custody and mother has primary care – Child lived in Arizona, USA until August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Alberta, Canada on May 18, 2018 – Application dismissed – Main issue: Art 13(1)(b) – It would be an intolerable situation to return the child to Arizona as neither parent resides there.

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.