Case Law Search

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of a 1-year-old girl – separated parents – Spanish father – Venezuelan mother – the custody rights were jointly exercised – the girl lived in Spain until July 2011 – the return request was filed before the Spanish courts on 12 July 2011 – Appeal allowed, return ordered – Main issues: removal and retention, rights of custody, grave risk, human rights, jurisdiction issues, procedural matters - removal was not wrongful, but retention was, since the father did not authorise the girl’s permanent stay in Venezuela – both parents had custody rights under Spanish law – the mother did not establish the grave risk circumstances claimed – the girl’s return did not violate any Venezuelan fundamental principle on human rights protection – who is the right parent to have custody should not be discussed within return proceedings; on the contrary, this type of proceeding is concerned with whether there was a wrongful removal or retention – measures were taken to secure the safe return  of the child to Spain and the parents were encouraged to resort to mediation.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered, subject to undertakings; Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters | Issues Relating to Return

Return ordered with undertakings offered

Wrongful removal of a boy when he was 10 years old - Venezuelan – the father had exclusive custody rights  - the child lived in Venezuela until 2018 – the father requested return before the Venezuelan Central Authority in July 2020 – return ordered – main issues: removal and retention, consent, settlement of the child, grave risk, objection of the child to a return, procedural matters, issues relating to return – removal was wrongful since it breached the father’s custody rights, attributed to him under the law of the State where the child was habitually resident – the father did not consent to the child’s removal – he acted towards the child’s return within a year since the wrongful removal – it was not established that the child would be exposed to a grave risk or an intolerable situation upon return to Venezuela – it was not established that the child’s fundamental rights were impaired – there was not an irreducible objection of the child against returning to the place where he was habitually resident - the Court ordered an interim exit and change of residence ban - the Court ordered the parents to collaborate with enforcement of the return order - the Court ordered to take the necessary steps for the child’s safe return

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The Federal Court rejected the appeal and upheld the cantonal court's decision ordering the children's return to Israel. However, it stated that given the current situation in Israel, it would be up to the competent enforcement authority to organise the safe return of the children, accompanied by their mother, as soon as the situation allowed.

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

Case remitted to lower court

One child wrongfully removed at age ten – National of Switzerland and Spain – Unmarried parents – Father national of Spain – Mother national of Switzerland – Joint custody according to Spanish law – Child lived in Spain until January/February 2016 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Spain on 17 February 2016 – Case remitted to lower court – Main issues: objections of the child to return – According to the mother, the child has expressed that he does not wish to return to Spain. An expert opinion that was ordered by the competent cantonal court has affirmed the child’s ability to independently form such an opinion. The father, however, invokes that the expert’s opinion was biased towards the mother and overlooked multiple factors that put the child’s maturity level as defined in 13 (2) into question.

Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children

Return refused

Wrongful removal of three girls when they were 15, 10 and 7 years old - Paraguayan – married parents – Paraguayan father – Paraguayan mother – the girls lived in Paraguay until October 2018 – the return request was filed before the Paraguayan Central Authority – return refused – main issues: grave risk, human rights, procedural matters – returned exposed the girls to a true risk of suffering psychological and physical harm, since they were victims of their father’s violence, as well as their mother was – return would amount to a violation of their dignity due to the violence exerted by their father – considering that the mother had returned to Paraguay, the maternal grandmother was given provisional care for a 90-day period until the girls returned to Paraguay with their mother

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Appeal allowed; the Luxembourg courts had no jurisdiction.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in France and Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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.

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.

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.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return refused

Child (Japanese national) born in 2017 in Japan ― Father and mother are Japanese nationals ― Parents went to the Philippines from Japan with the child in December 2017 ― Parents and child travelled back and forth due to absence of long-term visa in the Philippines ― Parents maintained properties in the Philippines and Japan, and business in Japan ― Mother removed the child from the Philippines to Japan in November 2018 ― Father filed petition in Japanese courts for the child’s return in October 2019 ― Return ordered at first instance ― Appeal allowed and return dismissed by appellate Japanese court ― Main issue: Habitual Residence.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and consent had not been established.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the Family Division of the High Court to reconsider the habitual residence of the children.

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

Appeal allowed and case remitted to a different judge of the Family Division of the High Court for re-hearing; the trial judge had erred in the manner in which she had approached her interview with the child, for she had engaged in evidence gathering and then relied upon that evidence in ordering the return of the child.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal of the child was wrongful but she was now settled in her new environment and the Court exercised its discretion to refuse her return.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Procedural Matters | Non-Convention Issues

Certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court granted; the issues raised by the applicant father were each deemed to involve a matter of general public importance.