Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The complaint (Beschwerde) appeal lodged by the mother was refused, the child should be returned to the USA.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; none of the exceptions raised by the mother was applicable.

Return ordered

Two children wrongfully removed and retained – Children lived in the United States of America until November 2019 – Return ordered – Main issue: COVID-19 determination of urgency – Hague Convention abduction applications are urgent matters that should be dealt with, even during the suspension of regular court operation.

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

Application dismissed

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

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed. The child’s habitual residence was in the UK and so the retention was not wrongful.

Note that this decision was subsequently overturned on appeal in Re F (A Child) (Habitual Residence) [2025] EWCA Civ 911, INCADAT Case Number: 1619.

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

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

Order for return of the child to Japan. 

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful removal of a girl when she was 6 years old – American – Divorced parents – American father – shared custody rights; after removal, exclusive custody of the father – the girl lived in the U.S. since birth until mid-2022 – the return request was filed before the Argentine courts in August 2022 – return ordered – main issues: grave risk; jurisdiction issues; procedural matters; best interests of the child – the grave risk exception cannot be granted if the violence/sexual abuse reported can be duly addressed by the authorities in the State of habitual residence – the merits of the custody issue must be resolved in the State of habitual residence – the safe return measures must be adequately tailored to the best interests of the child and must not interfere with the merits of the rights of custody issue.

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

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the child had never lost her original habitual residence in Texas.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return refused

Father was an Australian national and mother a Japanese national ― Unmarried parents met online around May 2017 ― In 2019 father briefly visited mother in Japan and she fell pregnant ― Mother moved to Australia in July 2019 to give birth to the child and cohabit with father ― Parents continuously had disagreements ― Father was verbally violent and neglectful of child ― By the time of the child’s birth, mother lost her intent to raise the child in Australia ― With father’s consent, mother took their daughter to Japan 43 days after her birth ― In December 2019, maternal grandfather told father that Mother would return to Australia with the child ― Father petitioned for return of the child to the Osaka Family Court in 2020 ― Return order made by court at first instance was appealed ― In May 2021 Osaka High Court reversed first instance decision on the basis the child’s habitual residence was in Japan not Australia ― Main issue: Habitual residence of the child.

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 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the Irish court held rights of custody in respect of the child and the father was allowed to rely on those rights in making a return application under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed; the removal was wrongful but the case was remitted to the Family Court in Christchurch to enable it to determine whether any of the exceptions were applicable.

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.

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