Case Law Search

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.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

One child wrongfully retained 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: Rights of custody – Even though formally they agreed that the mother has the sole “cuidado personal” in fact both of the parents exercise it and therefore after the agreed date of return to Chile the retention was wrongful.

Non-Convention Issues

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered.

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.

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.

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

Return ordered

The court held that the child had been wrongfully retained in Canada and ordered her return to New Zealand.

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.

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.

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

Return refused

Return refused.

American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR)

Guidance on the application of the Convention issued

Wrongful removal of a child when he was 2 years old - married parents – Paraguayan mother – Argentine father – the child lived in Argentina until January 2006 – return request filed before the Argentine Central Authority – return ordered – unenforced order – petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights – case referred to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights – Paraguay was found liable on the violation of the father’s rights, enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful as the child was habitually resident in Ireland on the relevant date.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the removal was wrongful however it was determined that the child had become settled in her new environment in accordance with Article 12(2).

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful as the child retained his habitual residence in Israel on the relevant date.

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 retention was wrongful and neither Article 13(1)(b) nor Article 13(2) had been proven to the standard required.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the child was not habitually resident in the Netherlands on the relevant date.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention. The Australian authorities were in a position to provide for the well-being of the children, if that was required.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child had not acquired a habitual residence in the other Contracting State at the date of the alleged wrongful retention.