Case Law Search

Non-Convention Issues | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return refused

Return Refused.

Non-Convention Issues | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered

Return ordered.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered despite a pending asylum application.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Canada on the relevant date.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Challenge rejected and return order confirmed. The removal was wrongful and the court of appeal had correctly found the Article 13 exceptions to be inapplicable.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return refused

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

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

By five votes to two: infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); award of damages on the basis of Article 41 of the ECHR.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

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 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; the retention was wrongful and the grounds for exception under the Convention were not applicable.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; there was no retention of the child.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in the United States.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the children were habitually resident in the United States of America at the date of the alleged wrongful retention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the child's habitual residence was in Denmark at the relevant date.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered, with the father ordered to pay the costs of return; the child was habitually resident in Turkey at the time of her removal and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

One child wrongfully retained at age 3 – National of United Kingdom and Switzerland – Married parents – Father national of United Kingdom and Turkey – Mother national of Switzerland and Turkey – Joint parental responsibility – Child lived in the United Kingdom until 7 August 2020 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 12 April 2021 – Return refused – Main issue: Acquiescence/Consent Art.13(1)(a)] –Father’s behaviour deemed acquiescence, namely signing a residence registration, bringing child’s personal effects, transferring money, signing a divorce agreement accepting Switzerland as the place of jurisdiction.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the exceptions in art. 13 CLaH 80 did not apply.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Child born in 2014 in Singapore ― Parents married in 2008 ― Nationality of the entire family is unknown ― The family travelled abroad in August 2017 ― On the evening of 30 August 2017 in Japan, father drank and exercised physical violence against the mother ― Father arrested and criminal proceedings instituted ― Parents reached a settlement on 15 September 2017 ― Parents agreed that they would live separately ― The mother would live in Japan with the child as the primary caregiver, whereas the father would pay damages and maintenance and have visitation with the child ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to Singapore in the Tokyo Family Court in December 2017 ― Application dismissed ― Appeal dismissed by the Tokyo High Court in May 2018 ― Main issues: consent and grave risk.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Two children retained in Japan ― United States nationals born in 2009 and 2012 ― Married parents living in the United States ― Father and mother nationals of the United States ― Father and children travelled to Japan from November 2018 and resided there from 2019 ― Mother visited father and children in Japan several times but did not relocate there ― Mother and fathers’ relationship deteriorated and father retained children in Japan from November 2019 ― Father instituted in-court conciliation to obtain sole custody before the Japanese courts in January 2020 ― Mother sought return of the children in the Japanese courts in February 2020 ― Japanese courts dismissed the claim as children were habitually resident in Japan ― Habitual residence determined on the grounds of the children’s close connection and integration into their social and family environment ― Limited role of the parents’ intentions in determining habitual residence ― Main issue: Habitual residence.