Case Law Search

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the removal of the boys was wrongful insofar as it breached an implied right under New York law that access rights not be frustrated by the unilateral relocation of a child.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; there had neither been a wrongful removal nor a wrongful retention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed and return refused; the children were habitually resident in Iceland at the relevant date, which was not at that time a party to the Hague Convention.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful, the child being habitually resident in Australia in January 1990. The child did not face a grave risk in being returned.

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

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; there had neither been a wrongful removal or retention as the child had lost his Australian habitual residence when he left that State with his mother.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the role played by the unmarried father in the care of the child was sufficient to vest him with custody rights. These rights were breached when the child was fraudulently taken to Wales.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the removal of the children breached rights of custody vested in the English court seized of the pending custody proceedings.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the children would face a grave risk of psychological harm had not been met.

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

The father's appeal was allowed and the order dismissing his application as an abuse of the process set aside. The mother's cross-appeal was dismissed as the child was found to be habitually resident in Germany immediately prior to her removal. The child was to be returned to Germany, subject to undertakings.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in Ontario at the relevant date.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; there was no wrongful retention as the child had acquired a habitual residence in Sweden after two years' residence there.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the removal was wrongful.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

The father's appeal was dismissed; there was no reason to order the return of the child since he had been taken to the State of his habitual residence.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Interpretation of the Convention

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the children were not habitually resident in Israel at the time of the removal.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Human Rights - Art. 20

Return ordered

Return ordered; the child had been wrongfully retained and none of the exceptions had been established 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)

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Return ordered with an undertaking required; neither Article 13(1)(a) nor Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed; case remitted to the Family Court.