Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Japanese child born in 2014 ― Father and mother previously foreign nationals and naturalized in Japan ― Parents married in 2001 in Japan ― Parents and child moved to the US in July 2017 ― Child obtained health insurance and enrolled in kindergarten in the US ― Parents established a company and started a business in December 2017 in the US ― Marital relationship deteriorated, and father removed child to Japan in April 2019 ― Neither father nor mother had a long-term visa for the US ― Mother filed petition for the child’s return to the Tokyo Family Court in December 2019 ― Return ordered ― Appeal dismissed and return ordered by the Tokyo High Court in June 2020 ― Main issue: Habitual residence of the child and grave risk defence.

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 

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 and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Return refused

Return refused; the father had acquiesced in terms of Article 13(1)(a).

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

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to show that the child would face a grave risk of physical harm had not been met.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Australia at the relevant date.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful as only the father had the requisite intention to stay in Australia and acquire a habitual residence there.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of harm if returned had not been met.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed, refusal of Article 15 declaration overturned

Appeal allowed and a declaration was made that the removal was wrongful; while the father had no standing to make an Article 15 application, that could be made on the application of the Central Authority as an intervenor.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) had not been met to show that the father had consented.

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

Reclaiming motion (appeal) allowed; case remitted to the Outer House of the Court of Session to determine the issues of wrongful retention and habitual residence.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return refused

Return refused; the court found that the father had consented to the children going to and remaining in Scotland.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of an intolerable situation had not been met.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the Lord Ordinary had incorrectly inferred that the father had consented to the children's relocation to Germany, thereby enabling them to acquire a habitual residence there.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of physical harm or an intolerable situation had not been met.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return refused in respect of the older child; the standard required under Article 13(2) had been met. Return ordered in respect of the younger child; the standard required under Article 13(2) had not been met.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in the United States at the relevant date and the standard had not been met under Article 13(1)(a) to show that the father had acquiesced.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Return ordered, subject to undertakings; the child was habitually resident in Canada on the relevant date.