Case Law Search

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

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

The court found that there had been a violation of the Article 8 Right to Respect for Private and Family Life and awarded damages to the mother and the children.

Non-Convention Issues

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Undertakings

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Retention wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Rights of Access - Art. 21

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; by a majority verdict it was held that under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act there was no jurisdiction for a Federal Court to hear an access claim.

Rights of Access - Art. 21

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the court did not have jurisdiction to consider a request for access rights as a remedy to a wrongful retention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 |

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child (Australian and Japanese national) resided in Australia and Japan ― Father Australian national, mother Japanese national ― Parents married in 2013 in Australia ― Parents lived together in Japan from November 2013 until June 2014, until the father returned to Australia ― Mother joined Father in Australia from September 2014 until October 2015, with a written agreement to reside there only up to two years ― Mother returned to Japan with the child in October 2015 ― Father visited them in Japan from mid-December 2015 until mid-January 2016 ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to the Osaka Family Court in March 2016 ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal dismissed and return refused by the Osaka High Court in 2017 ― Main issue: Habitual residence of the child.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as there was no express agreement that the child would return to the United States of America on 29 December 2012.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Best Interests of the Child | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Article 15 Decision or Determination | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal allowed and it was ordered that the proceedings be transferred to France in accordance with Article 15 of the Brussels II a Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003).

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Non-Convention Issues

Application dismissed; the children had lost their habitual residence in the United Kingdom - England & Wales, therefore the English courts were no longer competent to adjudicate in respect of them.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and no exception raised was applicable.

Remanded; the district court failed to explain its application of the Convention and Canadian law. The District Court was ordered to explicitly apply the relevant portions of the Convention and make findings of fact explaining its application.

Procedural Matters | Non-Convention Issues

In an unanimous ruling the Court held that Albania had breached Article 8 of the ECHR in that the efforts of the Albanian authorities were neither adequate nor effective to discharge their positive obligation under Article 8 to reunite the father with his daughter. The Court also made an award of compensation to the father under Article 41 of the ECHR.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The Court held that the district court had the authority to order the return of the children, regardless of their asylum status, as the evidentiary burdens for the Convention differ from asylum proceedings.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and return application dismissed; the children had not acquired a habitual residence in Scotland.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Human Rights - Art. 20

Return ordered

Return ordered.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and return application refused. There was a definite wrongful retention but more than a year had elapsed after the retention and the father had acquiesced.

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

Return refused

Three children, 8-year-old boy (D), 6-year-old boy (Y) and 3-year-old girl (B), wrongfully removed - Parents divorced - Father national of Sudan - Mother national of Sudan - D and Y born in Egypt - B born in the Netherlands - Children subject to supervision order in the Netherlands, primarily cared for by the mother with the father allowed contact - Family lived in the Netherlands from 2020 until 2023 - Mother made serious allegations of domestic abuse against the father, including rape, beatings of her and the children, and a desire for B to undergo FGM - Mother wrongfully removed the children from the Netherlands on 6 or 7 July 2023, travelling by small boat to the UK - Father filed application for return with the High Court of England and Wales on 13 June 2024 - Return refused - Main issues: Article 13(b) - Domestic abuse allegations so severe that the risk of return was grave - Undertakings offered by the father were inadequate to be sufficient protective measures - D and Y opposed return but this did not constitute an objection for Article 13 purposes.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Two children, 12-year-old girl a (‘X’) and 6-year-old boy (‘Y’), wrongfully removed - Nationals of the United Kingdom and Mauritius - Father national of the United Kingdom and Mauritius - Mother national of the United Kingdom and Mauritius - All lived together in the United Kingdom until 2019 before travelling to Mauritius - Parents separated in 2020, following which Mother had primary care and Father had regular contact - Mother wrongfully removed children to the United Kingdom in 2022 - Father filed application for return with the High Court - Summary return ordered and Article 13(1)(b) defence rejected - X joined as a party - Summary return order set aside following X’s Article 13(2) objections - Father appeals this - Main issues: scope of solicitor-guardian’s role in Hague proceedings - weight attributed to the child’s objections - Appeal dismissed, return refused. 

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of the child – Separated parents – Custody rights were jointly exercised – The child lived in Spain until 11 August 2014 – The request for return was filed before the Central Authority in Spain in September 2014 – Return ordered – Main issues: habitual residence, removal and retention, settlement of the child, art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, procedural matters – The habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful removal was in Spain – There was wrongful retention in breach of the custody rights, which were exercised jointly pursuant to the agreement signed by the mother and father – The settlement of the child was not considered because the one-year period required by the Convention had not elapsed – The evidence did not contribute to determining whether there had been sexual abuse; on the contrary, a true demonstration of the risk was necessary to justify the application of article 13(1)(b) - The Central Authority of Spain was urged to take measures to protect the child and to do a follow-up on the case to provide the father with the necessary legal support.