Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(1)(a) and (b) and Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Non-Convention Issues

Return ordered

Return ordered. The Court denied the mother’s requests for a stay and/or an adjournment of the return application proceedings on the basis of her applications for refugee protection.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard required under Art 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Convention had been met.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Procedural Matters |

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 4 – National of Poland - Married parents (ongoing divorce proceedings) – Mother national of Poland – Father national of Poland - Parents had joint custody. Divorce court gave mother the right to have the child during the abduction until the end of the divorce proceedings. Decision that was annulled after return was ordered. – Child lived in Poland (until 4 December 2015)  – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Switzerland on 6 June 2016 – Return ordered – Main issue: Grave Risk – The fact that the mother considers her own return to Poland to be intolerable, both financially and professionally, is not relevant to the examination of the exception to return.

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.

Procedural Matters |

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

one child wrongfully removed at age 8 – National of Chile –unmarried parents – Father national of Chile – Mother national of Chile – Agreement that the “cuidado personal” is solely attributed to the mother, but in fact it is exercised by both – Child lived in Chile until 14 August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 19 September 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: costs – Appeal of the father regarding costs has been dismissed based on interpretation of Article 26.

Procedural Matters

Challenge against the return order declared inadmissible; request for legal aid rejected.

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.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Unlawful retention of a one-year-old child – Argentine national – Married parents – Father was an Argentine national – Mother was a Uruguayan national – Both parents held custodial rights – The child lived in Argentina until July 2015 – The restitution request was submitted to the Argentine Central Authority – Appeal granted, return ordered – Key issues: Article 3 (habitual residence), Articles 3 and 12 (removal and retention), Article 13(1)(b) (grave risk exception) – The child's habitual residence was Argentina – The retention was deemed unlawful as the mother lacked the other parent’s consent – No grave risk was established, as Argentina had judicial mechanisms to protect the mother and 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.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Interpretation of the Convention | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. 

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.