Case Law Search

Procedural Matters

Legal challenge rejected.

Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Legal challenge dismissed.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Human Rights - Art. 20

Legal challenge rejected; the removal was wrongful and Article 20 was inapplicable.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Article 15 Decision or Determination

Appeal allowed, refusal of Article 15 declaration overturned

Appeal allowed and Article 15 declaration granted; the removal of the children had been in breach of actually exercised rights of custody and was therefore wrongful.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the trial judge had erred in his interpretation of Article 13(2). Reassessing the nature of the objections of the eldest child the Inner House concluded that they were not of sufficient weight to activate the exception. The eldest child being returned the younger siblings would therefore be returned also.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the children were habitually resident in Israel at the date of the alleged wrongful retention.

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

Legal challenge upheld and new order issued for the child to be returned; the removal was wrongful and the conditions necessary for the application of Article 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had not been met.

Issues Relating to Return

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

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

Return ordered

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

Return ordered

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but the applicant father was found to have acquiesced.

Issues Relating to Return

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed in part and application dismissed; the children were habitually resident in Israel at the date of the alleged wrongful retention. The trial court had though erred in its interpretation of the concept of acquiescence.

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

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Return ordered

The father's appeal was dismissed and the daughter's return ordered. The mother's appeal was dismissed and the son's return refused at this time.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

2 children allegedly wrongfully retained at ages 3 and less than 1 - Unmarried parents - Father national of France - Mother national of the United Kingdom and Canada - Children lived in France until July 2013 - Return proceedings initiated soon after 20 November 2013 - Application dismissed - Main issue: habitual residence - Parents' joint decision for children to temporarily move to another State does not preclude the children from becoming habitually resident in that State