Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the child objected to going back, was of sufficient age and maturity, and the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in upholding the child's objections.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, granting of Article 15 declaration confirmed

Appeal dismissed and Article 15 declaration granted; the removal had been in breach of the father's actually exercised rights of custody.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

4 children allegedly retained - aged 10, 13, 14 and 16 at the time of the decision – Nationals of Canada and Germany – Father national of Germany – Mother national of Canada – Both parents had rights of custody – Children lived in Germany until August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Ontario in August 2018 – Application dismissed – Main issue(s): Habitual Residence – Art 3 – The children were habitually resident in Canada and therefore there was no wrongful retention 

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

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

1 child allegedly retained at age 3 – National of Canada and United Stated – Unmarried parents – Father national of Brazil – Mother national of Canada – Child lived most of her life in Canada but spent several months in the United States on three separate occasions – Application for return filed with the courts on August 30, 2019 – Application dismissed – Main issue: Art 3 – The child was habitually resident in Canada and therefore there was no wrongful retention

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Undertakings

Return ordered with undertakings offered

4 children removed at ages 13, 6, 5 & 2 – Unmarried parents – Court found that both parents had custody rights – The children lived in United States (North Dakota) until September 29, 2016 – Application for return filed with courts of Canada (Saskatchewan) in May 2017 – Return of 3 children ordered in June 2017 – Main issues: Article 3 (custody) – In the absence of proved foreign law, the Court applied Saskatchewan law and found that the father had custody rights with respect to his 3 biological children at the time of the removal – Undertakings – Father provided undertaking not to enforce US chasing order before a certain date to avoid children being forcibly removed from their mother by the police. 

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was wrongful and notwithstanding the child's objections to a return the Court exercised its discretion to make a return order.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the children were no longer habitually resident in Australia on the relevant date.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

One child (Russian national) born in 2014 resided in Russia ― Father and mother Russian nationals ― Parents married in 2014 in Russia ― Parents divorced in 2016 ― Mother took the child to Japan in October 2017 and settled there following her remarriage ― A ne exeat order of the Russian court was partly set aside by confirming the child’s temporary residence in Japan in January 2019 ― Central Authority of Japan assisted the Father with a return application in July 2018 ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to the Tokyo Family Court in October 2018 ― Return ordered ― Appeal dismissed by the Tokyo High Court in February 2019 ― Main issues: rights of custody and grave risk.

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

Return ordered

Order for return of the child to Japan. 

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Procedural Matters | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

First instance judgment affirmed, appeal denied. The wrongful retention began on 4 January 2023. The father did not successfully file a petition until April 2024 and the child was found to be well-settled in the USA. The lower court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order the child’s return to Greece. 

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful removal of a girl when she was 6 years old – American – Divorced parents – American father – shared custody rights; after removal, exclusive custody of the father – the girl lived in the U.S. since birth until mid-2022 – the return request was filed before the Argentine courts in August 2022 – return ordered – main issues: grave risk; jurisdiction issues; procedural matters; best interests of the child – the grave risk exception cannot be granted if the violence/sexual abuse reported can be duly addressed by the authorities in the State of habitual residence – the merits of the custody issue must be resolved in the State of habitual residence – the safe return measures must be adequately tailored to the best interests of the child and must not interfere with the merits of the rights of custody issue.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed, return refused. The District Court had erred in finding that Article 13(1)(b) did not apply. 

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

4 children wrongfully removed - Nationals of the Netherlands - Married parents - Father and mother nationals of the Netherlands - Order of 22 November 2017 granted a certified authority ("gecertificeerde autoriteit") temporary custody pending the execution of a return order (if any); parents initially had joint custudy  - Children lived in an unidentified State until 14 June 2017 - Return refused - Main issues: objections of the child to return, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return - In cases in which the children's objections go farther than expressing a mere preference not to return, and in which the children's testimony is consistent and there is evidence of severe insecurity, instability and uncertainty in the environment to which they are to be returned, return may be refused under Art. 13(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, provided the children have attained the appropriate age and degree of maturity - Ordering the return of only some of the children will result in separation, which could place the returned children in an intolerable situation - Return may be refused under Art. 13(1)(b) of the Convention for all children where there is a history of repeated domestic violence, intervention of the courts and social workers, and where the children have suffered from frequent changes of residence and school; and where the care provided in the requested State is restoringing continuity to their lives and enabling them to process their trauma, such that it is in their best interests to remain there

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the child had never lost her original habitual residence in Texas.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return refused

Father was an Australian national and mother a Japanese national ― Unmarried parents met online around May 2017 ― In 2019 father briefly visited mother in Japan and she fell pregnant ― Mother moved to Australia in July 2019 to give birth to the child and cohabit with father ― Parents continuously had disagreements ― Father was verbally violent and neglectful of child ― By the time of the child’s birth, mother lost her intent to raise the child in Australia ― With father’s consent, mother took their daughter to Japan 43 days after her birth ― In December 2019, maternal grandfather told father that Mother would return to Australia with the child ― Father petitioned for return of the child to the Osaka Family Court in 2020 ― Return order made by court at first instance was appealed ― In May 2021 Osaka High Court reversed first instance decision on the basis the child’s habitual residence was in Japan not Australia ― Main issue: Habitual residence of the child.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; there was no wrongful retention as the child had acquired a habitual residence in Sweden after two years' residence there.

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

Appeal allowed; case remitted to the Family Court of Australia for a determination to be made as to the children's objections.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) to show acquiescence had been met.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the Irish court held rights of custody in respect of the child and the father was allowed to rely on those rights in making a return application under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed; the removal was wrongful but the case was remitted to the Family Court in Christchurch to enable it to determine whether any of the exceptions were applicable.