Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 4 – Child lived in France until August 2012 – Return ordered – Main issue: habitual residence – Habitual residence should be determined in the light of all the factual circumstances particular to the case, including the parents’ shared intention and decisions taken with a view to ensure the child’s integration

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions invoked applied.

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

Appeal dismissed; the pleas raised were not grounds for quashing.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, quashing and annulment of the ruling dismissing the application for the child's return and referral of the case to the Versailles Court of Appeal to act upon the return application in the light of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed and case remitted to trial court; the trial court had failed to give due consideration to the child's status as a refugee when determining the return application. Furthermore, there had been procedural failings in the conduct of the trial and the exceptions to return had not been investigated properly.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

The Belgian courts have no jurisdiction: the existence of acquiescence by the father in the child's wrongful retention precludes the international jurisdiction of the Belgian courts on the basis of Article 10 of the Brussels II a Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003).

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Preliminary ruling issued to the effect that a Member State was not precluded from requiring by its law that an unmarried father must have obtained a court order granting him custody of a child in order to qualify as having "custody rights" which would render the removal of that child from its country of habitual residence as wrongful for the purposes of Article 2(11) of Council Regulation 2201/2003.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed; there had been a wrongful retention since the child had her habitual residence in Italy.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Issues Relating to Return | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal dismissed and return ordered, subject to undertakings. The retention was wrongful; the grave risk defence under Article 13(1)(b) had not been established. There was no evidence to substantiate the mother's allegations of mistreatment at the hands of the father.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Non-Convention Issues

Appeal allowed; the High Court did not have jurisdiction, the child not being habitually resident in England and Wales on the date proceedings were commenced.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

Return refused

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

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 7 – Unmarried, separated parents – Joint parental authority, mother primary carer – Child lived in France until 31 December 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: Article 13(1)(b): a decision of refusal to return a child should be based on the risk of 'exposure' to harm. Where a fellow signatory to the 1980 Convention has found that there was no such grave risk of exposure to harm it would be rare to find the opposite. 

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

Return ordered

The court ordered the return of the children to the State of Connecticut, United States of America, within two weeks of the order becoming final and binding.

Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed, return ordered

The court allowed the appeal and ordered the child’s return to Italy. The situation did not amount to a “fundamental change in circumstances” required in order to set aside a decision under the 1980 Convention. 

Non-Convention Issues

The court held that it would be detrimental to the child’s best interests for the return order to be enforced before the appeal before the SCA was decided. 

Interpretation of the Convention | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Return refused

The application for return was dismissed. There was enough evidence to show that there was a grave risk of harm if to the children if they returned to Israel. The judge refused to order the return based on Article 13(1)(b) and Article 20.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return refused

The court held that the child’s habitual residence remained in Hong Kong. In light of this decision, the retention of the child in Hong Kong could not be considered wrongful. 

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal rejected. Return ordered.