Case Law Search

Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Case remitted to lower court

1 child wrongfully retained at age 5 – National of Croatia and Germany – Married parents– Father national of Croatia and Germany – Mother national of Croatia – Joint custody according to the German Civil Code and under Croatian law – Child lived in Germany until December2015 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Croatia on 22 March 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Croatia on 30 May 2016 - The Court granted the appeal, set aside the first instance judgment and remitted the case for a new trial to the court of first instance – Main issues: Rights of Custody, Brussels IIa Regulation –The first instance court should have applied the Brussels II a Regulation, including its requirement for return to be ordered in Art. 13(1)(b) cases in which it has been established that adequate arrangements have been made to secure the protection of the child upon his return.

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

Return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal to Panama was considered wrongful and the grave risk exception of Article 13(1)(b) raised by the mother was not established.

Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Wrongful retention of a 1-year-old boy – Costa Rican – unmarried parents – Nicaraguan father – Dominican mother – Joint custody rights – The boy lived in Costa Rica until January 2018 – The return request was filed before a Nicaraguan court in January 2019 – Return ordered – Main issues: procedural matters – The parents agreed that the child would return to Costa Rica in the company of his father once the latter was assured that he would not be criminally sanctioned for child abduction.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Sweden at the time of the retention and the standard required under Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention to establish a grave risk of harm had not been met.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Legal Doctrine

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return upheld. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions raised was applicable.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Article 15 declaration refused

Article 15 declaration: the removal of the child was not wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 as the father did not have rights of custody on the relevant date.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention |

Return refused

Lawful retention of two girls - Uruguayan – Separated parents – The girls lived in Brazil until 19 April 2019, when the mother removed them to Uruguay – The mother filed a return application with the Brazilian Central Authority – Return refused – Main issues: removal and retention, consent, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, procedural matters, interpretation of the Convention – There was no wrongful retention, as the mother actually removed them voluntarily to Uruguay – The mother had consented that the girls live in Uruguay by removing them to that country and delivering the necessary documents for them to resume their life there to the father – There was a grave risk due to the high emotional disturbance they suffered as a consequence of the physical, psychological and sexual violence they had suffered in Brazil – The proceedings are autonomous and specific for international child abduction cases under Uruguayan Law 18,895 – The children’s best interests in this case had been furthered by preventing them from returning to an environment of sexual, psychological and emotional abuse.

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

Return ordered

Wrongful retention of an adolescent in Uruguay – Custody right exercised solely by the mother – The adolescent lived in Spain with his mother for 4 years – The return application was filed before the Spanish Central Authority – Return ordered – Main issues: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, objections of the child to a return – The father did not prove any situation in which there was a grave risk actually making return intolerable and exposing the adolescent gravely – The adolescent voiced a preference but there was no true objection in the sense of an unwavering repudiation towards return.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Return ordered

Wrongful removal of a 12-year old child – Custody rights were exercised by the child’s aunt and her husband – The child lived in Costa Rica since he was 2 years old until February 2019 – Return ordered – Main Issues: habitual residence; rights of custody; jurisdiction issues – The habitual residence of the child is where his centre of life is, irrespective of the child’s nationality – Even though the mother had parental authority over the child, the rights of custody were exercised by the child’s aunt and her husband, and thus removal was wrongful – Return proceedings are not aimed at determining the parent’s ability to take care of and raise the child.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

One child wrongfully removed at age ten – National of Switzerland and Spain – Unmarried parents – Father national of Spain – Mother national of Switzerland – Joint custody according to Spanish law – Child lived in Spain until January/February 2016 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Spain on 17 February 2016 – Appeal dismissed, return ordered– Main issues: parental custody – The father received parental joint custody when the child's place of residence was transferred to Spain, since in Spain both parents have parental custody by law.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful but the child was found to have become settled in his new environment.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of a child when she was 4 years old - Trinidadian - Trinidadian parents – Joint custody but primary and residential custody with the mother - Child lived in the United States for 2 years and 4 months until she was removed and wrongfully retained in Trinidad as from 15 July 2017 – The return application was filed before a Trinidadian Family Court on 28 November 2017 – Appeal dismissed, return ordered - Main issues: habitual residence, removal and retention, grave risk, procedural matters – The child’s habitual residence was found to be in the U.S. because that was the mother’s place of residence and the girl had lived there for a considerable time - Removal had not been wrongful since the father had a temporary timesharing order but retention was since it breached the mother’s right of custody – The exception in Article 13(1)(b) was not granted as mere financial discomfort was not grave enough 

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

Retention of the elder child wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions proved to the standard required under the Convention. Retention of the younger child not wrongful as she had only ever been habitually resident in England. Return ordered under common law rules.

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.

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

Return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained at age 5 – National of Croatia and Germany – Married parents – Father national of Croatia and Germany – Mother national of Croatia – Joint costudy according to the German Civil Code – Child lived in Germany until December 2015 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Croatia on 22 March 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Croatia on 30 May 2016 – Return ordered – Main issues: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return, Undertakings, Objections of the Child to a Return – The Court ordered the return of the child, whose retention in Croatia was found to be unlawful under Art. 3 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

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.