Case Law Search

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.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed; there had been a fundamental change in the circumstances since the original decision and it was now appropriate to take the girl's objections into account. The case was remitted to the trial judge.

Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

The court ordered that the English Central Authority inform the Spanish Central Authority of the facts of the case and that the father be advised of his rights under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return ordered

Return ordered; the children were habitually resident in Germany at the relevant date.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that there had not been a wrongful retention under the Convention. However, the court allowed the appeal in that it stayed the substantive family law proceedings and held that the child's future should be determined in Texas.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, but the court exercised its discretion not to return the children. This was on the basis of Article 13(2) with respect to the two older children, and on the basis of Article 13(1)(b) as regards the youngest child.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the removal of the child did not breach any rights of custody and was not therefore wrongful.

Human Rights - Art. 20

Application dismissed and return ordered; the Convention does not violate the Irish Constitution.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the child was habitually resident in the United Kingdom on the relevant date and his removal to Australia, without the father's consent or acquiescence, was wrongful.

Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed; the child was habitually resident in Sweden at the relevant date. The case was remitted to the High Court for a hearing to determine if an Article 13 exception applied.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the children were habitually resident in the United States at the relevant date, and the standard required under Articles 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) had not been met.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the children were habitually resident in Australia on the relevant date.

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

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; the standard had been met under Article 13(1)(a) to show that the father had acquiesced in the removal and under Article 13(1)(b) to show that the children would face a grave risk of harm if returned.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered with undertakings offered

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

Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed; the District Court had abused its discretion in denying the motion to set aside.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered forthwith subject to undertakings. The child had been wrongfully removed and none of the exceptions applied.