Case Law Search

Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed and the order to return the children to the United States is to be enforced.

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

Appeal allowed in part; the removal was not wrongful, the order denying return was upheld; however, the ruling was amended in that it ordered the father to indemnify the mother.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return ordered

Return ordered. The Court did not find that the father had consented or acquiesced to the removal of the child from the United Kingdom and the mother did not provide enough evidence to make out an exception to return under Article 13(2) (child’s objections), Article 13(1)(b) (grave risk of harm) or Article 12 (settlement of the child).

Non-Convention Issues | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return ordered

Return ordered.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return ordered

Return ordered at the date provided for by the parental agreement.

Non-Convention Issues

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Wrongful retention of a 7-year-old boy - Venezuelan – unmarried parents – Venezuelan father - Venezuelan mother – The rights of custody were jointly exercised – The child lived in Venezuela until November 2012 – The return request was filed before the Panamenian courts in November 2014 – Return ordered – Main Issues: habitual residence, removal and retention, grave risk, procedural matters – The child’s habitual residence was in Venezuela – Removal was wrongful because the travel authorisation used by the mother was false – It was not proved that the father abused the child; the refugee status request was not an impediment against return – Measures were adopted for the child’s safe return to his habitual residence.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Unanimous: no breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

The ECrtHR held unanimously that Portugal had breached Article 8 of the ECHR but did not award damages to the mother because she had not made her application for just satisfaction within the time allowed to her.

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.

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.

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

Return refused