Case Law Search

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.

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.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the removal was wrongful.

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.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The Supreme Court rejected the mother’s appeal.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

The Convention cannot be invoked if by the time of the alleged wrongful act the child is habitually resident in the requested state.

Repudiatory retention exists and involves a subjective intention on the part of the travelling parent not to return, manifested by objectively identifiable act or statement.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

The court ordered the return of the child to the USA.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful removal of two girls when they were 10 and 6 years old – Married parents – The girls lived in Spain until July 2016 – Appeal allowed, return ordered – Main issues: Removal and retention, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, objections of the child to a return, matters relating to return – There was no concluding evidence that the mother had consented to a change in the girls’ habitual residence to Argentina – There was no grave risk that returning to Spain would cause psychological or physical harm to the girls – The girls did not strongly resist against or oppose returning to Spain, they only stated a mere preference for continuing to live in Argentina – The circumstances of the case had to be taken into account and the COVID-19 health emergency context as well in order to make return immediate and safe.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Two children wrongfully retained at ages 14 and 12 – Nationals of Switzerland and Slovakia –Divorced parents – Father national of Switzerland and Slovakia – Mother national of Czech Republic – The children are under joint custody of the parents. The mother has sole care. – Children lived in Spain (until June 2021) – Application for return filed with the Courts of Switzerland on 16 September 2021 – Return ordered

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained at age 2 – Unmarried parents – Father national of Italy – Mother national of France – Italian court granted joint custody rights and decided that the child should live with the mother – Child lived in Italy until December 2015 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Italy in September 2016 - Application dismissed – Main issues: Rights of custody, habitual residence – It is up to the taking parent to prove that the left-behind parent was not exercising his rights of custody at the time of the removal or retention – It is for the authorities of the requesting State to determine the arrangements for the reception of the child upon her return

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal rejected, return ordered. The retention was considered wrongful and the mother's allegation of grave risk upon return to the United States of America was not found to be proved.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Rights of Access - Art. 21

Appeal inadmissible as it did not raise a sufficiently significant issue of law.