Case Law Search

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

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.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful as the child was habitually resident in Australia at the relevant time, and none of the exceptions had been proved.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed; return refused.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained in Japan ― National of Singapore and Japan ― Married parents ― Father national of Singapore – Mother national of Japan ― Child lived in Singapore until 2016 ― Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Singapore in 2016 ― Petition for return filed with the courts of Japan in 2017 ― Return ordered ― Main issues: acquiescence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – There is no grave risk in ordering the return of the child in cases involving domestic violence between the parents where a protection order is in place in the requesting State and where there is no evidence that any violence has been committed against the child ― It cannot be said that a parent has not actually exercised rights of custody at the time of removal if he did not know the whereabouts of the child at that time  ― A parent has not approved of or acquiesced in the retention if he filed a return application with the Central Authority of the requesting State about one month after coming to know of the removal, and with the courts of the requested State almost one year after the removal, respectively.

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

Return refused

Return refused. Though the mother was indeed wrongfully retaining the child, by the time the father made an application for return the child was settled in England and habitually resident there. 

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return ordered

Return ordered.

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

Return refused

Return refused, there was a grave risk of harm to the child if returned to Australia, within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b). The undertakings and protective measures offered by the father did not adequately protect the child against the identified risks.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully removed – National of Poland and France – Married parents – Father national of France – Mother national of Poland – Both parents had custody rights over the child – Child habitually resident in France - child brought to Poland on 2 May 2017 - child brought to France on 22 May 2018 - child brought to Poland on 2 June 2018 - child brought to France on 13 February 2019– Application for return to Poland filed on 21 March 2019 – Return refused – Main issue: Art. 3 Habitual Residence – The child’s habitual residence remained in France - Father’s removal to France on 13 February 2019 was not wrongful.

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 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | 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) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully retained in France – Separated parents – Mother given primary custody and the father had visiting rights – Child lived in Ukraine until October 2014 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Ukraine by the father on 18 November 2014 – Case referred by the public prosecutor of Nanterre to the District Court of Nanterre on 24 May 2016 – Appeal granted by the Supreme Court, return refused – Main issue: Art 12(2) – The child has settled in her new environment, within the meaning of Article 12(2) of the 1980 Convention, leading to the dismissal of the return request

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained at age 1 – Both parents have rights of custody – Child lived in Germany – Child retained in France since 23 August 2019 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Germany on 2 September 2019 – Request for return filed by the public prosecutor before the court of Toulouse, France, on 27 February 2020 – Return ordered – Main issues: Art. 3 and Art. 17 – The retention of the child in France was wrongful.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return refused

Return refused; the retention was wrongful, being in breach of the mother's rights of custody, but the child had valid objections to a return.