Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the child was habitually resident in Israel.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, 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

Challenge to legality upheld; the removal no longer infringed any custody rights.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | 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.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal wrongful and the exception invoked, Article 12(2), was not applicable.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return refused

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Return ordered

Wrongful removal of a 7-year old girl – Chilean – unmarried parents – Chilean father – Argentine mother – custody rights belong with the father – the girl lived in Chile until late 2019 – return application submitted before the Family Court in Formosa, Argentina, in September 2020 – return ordered – main issues: removal and retention, settlement of the child, art. 13(1)(b) grave risk, objections of the child to the return, procedural matters, interpretation of the Convention – retention was wrongful because the custody rights of the father, effectively exercised by him at the time, were infringed – the time required by the Convention to refuse the return on grounds of settlement of the child in her new environment did not elapse – no evidence that the child would be exposed to grave risk upon her return – there were no objections by the child showing an irreducible objection against returning to the place of habitual residence – due to effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the parents were invited to cooperate in the implementation of the return order and to avoid unnecessary delays – there are no incompatibilities between the Convention and the Convention on the Rights of The Child; both are meant to protect the best interests of the child.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

4 children wrongfully removed - Nationals of the Netherlands - Married parents - Father and mother nationals of the Netherlands - Order of 22 November 2017 granted a certified authority ("gecertificeerde autoriteit") temporary custody pending the execution of a return order (if any); parents initially had joint custudy  - Children lived in an unidentified State until 14 June 2017 - Return refused - Main issues: objections of the child to return, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return - In cases in which the children's objections go farther than expressing a mere preference not to return, and in which the children's testimony is consistent and there is evidence of severe insecurity, instability and uncertainty in the environment to which they are to be returned, return may be refused under Art. 13(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, provided the children have attained the appropriate age and degree of maturity - Ordering the return of only some of the children will result in separation, which could place the returned children in an intolerable situation - Return may be refused under Art. 13(1)(b) of the Convention for all children where there is a history of repeated domestic violence, intervention of the courts and social workers, and where the children have suffered from frequent changes of residence and school; and where the care provided in the requested State is restoringing continuity to their lives and enabling them to process their trauma, such that it is in their best interests to remain there

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained at age 6 – Married parents – Father national of France, Italy and Lebanon – Mother national of Spain and Uruguay – Joint custody – Child lived in France until July 2018  – Application for return filed with the US District Court in Washington in June 2019 – Return ordered – Main issue(s): Article 3 - wrongful retention before the expected date of return.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

4 children allegedly retained - aged 10, 13, 14 and 16 at the time of the decision – Nationals of Canada and Germany – Father national of Germany – Mother national of Canada – Both parents had rights of custody – Children lived in Germany until August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Ontario in August 2018 – Application dismissed – Main issue(s): Habitual Residence – Art 3 – The children were habitually resident in Canada and therefore there was no wrongful retention 

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Undertakings

Return ordered with undertakings offered

4 children removed at ages 13, 6, 5 & 2 – Unmarried parents – Court found that both parents had custody rights – The children lived in United States (North Dakota) until September 29, 2016 – Application for return filed with courts of Canada (Saskatchewan) in May 2017 – Return of 3 children ordered in June 2017 – Main issues: Article 3 (custody) – In the absence of proved foreign law, the Court applied Saskatchewan law and found that the father had custody rights with respect to his 3 biological children at the time of the removal – Undertakings – Father provided undertaking not to enforce US chasing order before a certain date to avoid children being forcibly removed from their mother by the police. 

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

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

1 child allegedly retained at age 3 – National of Canada and United Stated – Unmarried parents – Father national of Brazil – Mother national of Canada – Child lived most of her life in Canada but spent several months in the United States on three separate occasions – Application for return filed with the courts on August 30, 2019 – Application dismissed – Main issue: Art 3 – The child was habitually resident in Canada and therefore there was no wrongful retention

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The Supreme Court rejected the mother’s appeal.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

1 child wrongfully retained at age 2 – Married parents – Father national of Argentina – Mother national of Romania and Argentina – Joint custody – Child lived in Argentina until September 2006 and in Cyprus (for a UN mission) until March 2007 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Argentina on 4 December 2007 – Return ordered, subsequently quashed at extraordinary appeal before application to ECtHR on 21 December 2009 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 7,500 awarded in damages – The lack of expeditious enforcement of the final return order and the subsequent decision to quash this order in the extraordinary appeal, on the basis of irrelevant, unjustified and insufficient reasons, formed a violation of Article 8 

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

2 children wrongfully removed (aged 5 and 8 at the time of the decision) – Nationals of Brazil and Argentina – Divorced parents – Father national of Argentina, Venezuela, and Brazil – Mother national of Argentina – By a homologated conciliation agreement of 5 June 2014, the father had custody for a period of four months and thereafter the parents were to have joint custody – Children lived in Brazil until July 2014 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Brazil in October 2014 – A decision or determination under Art. 15 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was obtained - Application dismissed – Main issues: custody rights and acquiescence – “Rights of custody” has an autonomous meaning under the Convention, which crucially includes the right to determine the child’s place of residence – This right may be attributed to a parent by the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal, as well as by the context, structure and content of an agreement on custody homologated in that State – “Acquiescence is a question of the actual subjective intention of the wronged parent, and not of the outside world’s perception of her intentions”

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Two children wrongfully removed at age 1 – nationals of the Netherlands – married parents – father national of the Netherlands – mother national of the Netherlands – joint custody – children lived in Spain until 15 September 2018 - application for return filed with the court of the Hague on 16 November 2018 - return ordered – main issue: habitual residence, at any given time, a child can only have one place of habitual residence