Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. 

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.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered. Though there was a risk of harm to the child within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b), this risk could be sufficiently managed by protective measures. Furthermore, the child did not object to returning to Italy per se and that he had not attained a degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of his views. 

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | 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.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Non-Convention Issues | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal of the child to Argentina was considered wrongful. The grave risk of harm exception envisaged in Article 11.b of the Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children was not found to be established.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered

Return ordered. There was no evidence that the father consented or acquiesced to the children remaining in the US. The father filed his petition for the return of the children within one year and, even if more than a year had elapsed, the children were not settled in the US for the purposes of Article 12(2).

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Return ordered

The Court held that the mother had not made out the Article 13(1)(b) exception and ordered the return of the children.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return ordered

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

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.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, following an alternative construction of the concept of habitual residence by the Court of Appeals, the case was remitted to the District Court for it to determine whether the United States had supplanted Israel as the locus of the children's family and social development.

Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed; however the application for residence was dismissed on the merits.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the child was habitually resident in the United States on the relevant date.