Case Law Search

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; Article 12(2) had been proved to the standard required by the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention and discretion exercised not to make a return order.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal declared inadmissible.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

The court ordered the return of the child to the USA.

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.

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.

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

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. 

Issues Relating to Return

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

The parents and the children resided in France ― After the parents’ separation, the father removed two children from France to Japan ― Osaka Family Court ordered the return of the children to France on 11 September 2020, which became final and conclusive on 9 December 2020 ― Divorce decree rendered in France on 23 November 2020 ordered joint custody of the parents and the children to reside with the father in Japan, while only granting visitation right to the mother ― The Osaka Family Court granted the mother’s claim for indirect compulsory execution on 1 February 2021 ― The Osaka High Court reversed the decision and dismissed the mother’s claim to honor the French custody decision on 14 April 2021 ― The Supreme Court upheld the decision on the grounds that the mother’s claim for indirect compulsory execution became unlawful after the children returned to France as a result of compulsory execution by substitute ― Two justices concurred and opined that the lower court decision may conflict with Art. 17 of the 1980 Convention  Main issue: Admissibility of indirect compulsory execution that runs counter to a foreign custody order.

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.

Rights of Access - Art. 21

Application to enforce foreign access order refused; Article 21 confers no jurisdiction on a court to determine matters relating to access.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2

Return refused

In the absence of any possibility of there being a substantive hearing in France the return of the girls was refused.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; there had been no wrongful removal as the Convention had not entered into effect between the United Kingdom and Ontario at the relevant date.