Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Argentina on the relevant date and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under Article 13.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

By a 4:3 majority: No infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the District Court; the trial court had erred in its conclusions on habitual residence, actual exercise of custody rights and consent.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal had rightly found the children's retention to be wrongful and the exceptions inapplicable.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and the exception asserted inapplicable.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the conditions asserted was applicable.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had been established.

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Principal appeal inadmissible. The father was concealing his real address, thereby nullifying his appeal.

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

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and petition dismissed; the retention of the child was not wrongful as it did not breach any actually exercised rights of custody.

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

Confirmation of the order of 8 March 2006, in that it ordered the child's return; reversal of judgment of 23 March 2006. The removal was wrongful and the return could not be denied on the basis of Article 13 because adequate protection measures had been taken in Italy.

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

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; there was no wrongful retention as the child was habitually resident in Hong Kong on the relevant date.

Appeal dismissed, return refused

The court considered the jurisprudence on habitual residence and upheld the finding of the first instance judge: that the child’s residence in the USA had not acquired the necessary degree of stability to become habitual.  On the established principles, there was no basis to interfere with the judge’s finding.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed; return ordered. The Appellate Court held that the Article 13(1)(b) exception was not established.

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

Return refused

Alleged wrongful retention of the child when he was 9 years old – National of Argentina – Unmarried parents –Argentine father – Argentine mother – The child lived in Argentina until November 2014 – The return request was filed before the Chilean court on 22 April 2016 – Return refused – Main issues: habitual residence, rights of custody, settlement of the child, art. 13(1)(b) exception of grave risk, objections of the child to a return, procedural matters - the habitual residence of the child before the removal was in Argentina – the mother had rights of custody under the Convention, and thus retention was not wrongful and the father had no standing to request the international return – over two years elapsed between the arrival of the boy in Chile and the filing of the request, and the child was already settled in – return would certainly put the child at risk of endangering his physical and psychological integrity, due to his mother and him experiencing family violence – the child openly stated his wish not to return to Argentina.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The court rejected the Beschwerde appeal against the decision and ordered the return of the children.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return refused

The Supreme Court (third instance) determined that the children’s habitual residence had changed from the United States to Denmark during the period in which the father consented to them being in Denmark (December 2010 - February 2013). By the time that the father had opposed the children's continued residence in Denmark they were habitually resident there therefore not unlawfully retained. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the retention was not wrongful and that the children should not be returned to their father in the United States.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child (UK national) removed from Singapore to Japan ― Parents married in 2010, living together mostly in Singapore and briefly in Japan ― Father Singaporean national, mother Indian national ― Divorce in 2014 ― Father provided with access right, Mother with right to primarily care for the child and freely relocate with the child to Japan ― Mother went to Japan with the child and returned to Singapore in 2014 ― Failed access, Father sought a modification of the relocation clause and the modality of access ― Mother definitively removed the child to Japan in 2015 ― Assistance of the Central Authority of Japan revoked in 2016 ― The father filed a petition for the child’s return to the Osaka Family Court in 2016 ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal dismissed and return refused by the Osaka High Court in 2016 ― Main issues: Habitual residence of the child ― Rights of custody of the father or the Singaporean court.

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

Appeal allowed in part; the retention was wrongful but the trial judge should have exercised his discretion to refuse the return of the eldest child in the light of her objections. As a consequence, the case was remitted to the Family Division of the High Court to determine the outcome for the three younger siblings.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Non-Convention Issues

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal allowed and return ordered, subject to undertakings; the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was not applicable, the child being habitually resident in England and Wales on the relevant date, but the Court exercising its power under the inherent jurisdiction found that it was in the child's best interests to return to Texas so a court there could adjudicate on his future.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Article 15 Decision or Determination

Appeal allowed and Article 15 declaration refused.