Case Law Search

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

Return refused

Retention wrongful but return refused: Article 13(1)(b) had been established. A return to Lithuania would expose the child to an intolerable situation given his settlement in the United Kingdom.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Article 15 Decision or Determination

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; alternative conclusions submitted by the New Zealand court depending on the factual determinations made by the Australian court seised of the return proceedings.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

Unanimous: breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The authorities had failed to deploy adequate efforts to enable the mother to regain contact with her children.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

1 child wrongfully removed at age 6 – Unmarried parents – The mother had day-to-day care of the child and the father had supervised contact – Child lived in New Zealand until May 2016 – Application for return heard at first instance in December 2016 – First appeal: application dismissed – Second appeal: return ordered – Main issues: rights of custody, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, undertakings / conditions for return – The finding that there is no ”grave risk” within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) “while at the same time foreshadowing a preparedness to impose conditions on the order for return” can be consistent - fulfilment of conditions prior to the child’s return should be feasible and cannot place the taking parent in a better situation than she was before the removal

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully removed at age 4 – National of Poland – Married parents – Father national of Poland – Mother national of Poland – Parents exercised joint rights of custody – Child lived in Norway until June 2012 and then Poland until December 2012 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Norway in December 2012 –Return refused – Main issue: Article 3 – habitual residence – the child was habitually resident in Norway and so the return to Norway from Poland did not constitute an unlawful removal.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The mother’s complaint appeal was rejected and the father’s application for the return of the child was approved. It was not possible to establish any reason why the child’s wellbeing would be endangered in the event that he were returned.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The complaint appeal was rejected and it was once again ordered that the child be returned. No evidence was found that the child’s wellbeing was in danger due to the fact, that the father lost custody of his other daughter because of sexual abuse and his alleged paedophilic tendencies.

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

Return ordered with undertakings offered

2 children wrongfully removed at ages 4 and 7– Nationals of Canada and Norway – Married parents – Father national of Norway – Mother national of Canada – Both parents had rights of custody – Children lived in Hong Kong until 21 September 2018 – Application for return filed with the courts of Ontario (Canada) at the end of January 2019 – Return ordered – Main issue: Article 13(1)(b) Grave Risk – Evidence did not meet the 13(1)(b) threshold. Court considered affidavit and legal opinion from lawyer in Hong Kong – Undertakings – Undertakings necessary to secure safe, prompt and seamless return of children and to provide for transition between return order and when children are placed before the Hong Kong courts.

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

Return refused

2 children (twins) wrongfully removed at age 3 - Nationals of Canada and the United States of America - Married parents - Father national of the United States of America - Mother national of Canada - Joint custody - Children lived in the United States of America until October 2013 - Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Manitoba on February 2014 - Return refused - Main issues: consent to removal, Art 13(1) (b) grave risk exception to return, undertakings - Consent and acquiescence, within the meaning of Art. 13(1)(a), must be given “their plain, ordinary meaning”, and evidence to establish consent or acquiescence must be “clear and cogent” - The provision by one parent of time-limited travel consent is insufficient to prove that the parent consented to the removal or retention - Exceptionally, return may be refused under Art. 13(1)(b) if there is compelling evidence of severe long-standing and escalating physical and psychological harm inflicted on the taking parent and the children

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

2 children wrongfully removed at ages 3 and 2 - Nationals of Switzerland and the United Kingdom - Divorced parents - Father national of the United Kingdom - Mother national of Switzerland - Joint rights of custody; the father had supervised access rights while the mother effectively exercised custody - Repeated incidents of domestic violence were known to the social services - Children lived in the United Kingdom (England and Wales) until 25 March 2016 - Application for return filed with the first instance court in Switzerland on 5 September 2016 - Return ordered - Main issues: exceptions to ordering return - The exceptions to return should be interpreted restrictively - The determination whether ordering return would place the child in an intolerable situation, within the meaning of Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Child Abduction Hague Convention, may only be made in respect of the child, and not the taking parent -  Return must be ordered if the actual cause of the risk of placing the child in an intolerable situation upon return is an unfounded refusal of the taking parent to return with the child - The taking parent may stay in an area far from the left-behind parent's place of residence upon return to the requesting State, in order to preserve the stability that was gained by geographic separation from the left-behind parent

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 |

CJEU - Preliminary ruling issued, case remitted to national courts

Preliminary ruling given on the interpretation of habitual residence as an autonomous concept within the Brussels IIa Regulation. The Court concluded that the child’s habitual residence was in Greece and therefore the Court considered that there had not been an unlawful retention by the mother

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, the exception of grave risk was inapplicable; case returned to the Superior Court of the canton of Lucerne for a ruling on the terms of the return to Burkina Faso.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal had rightly taken into account the High Court judgment to refuse a return order.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions applied. 

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed, order refusing return upheld. Although the child's retention was wrongful, the father had acquiesced. 

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused. The abduction was wrongful but there was a grave risk that ordering a return would expose the child to harm. It had not been established that the Hungarian authorities could ensure the protection of the child.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the children had lost their Israeli habitual residence by the relevant date.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was habitually resident in Israel on the relevant date.