Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful since the child was habitually resident in Israel at the relevant date.

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

Application dismissed

Appeal dismissed, and application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as there was no breach of custody rights.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) to show that the father had acquiesced had not been met.

Procedural Matters | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the High Court for it to exercise its discretion as to whether the child should be returned to England.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

The High Court allowed the appeal in both cases. The cases were remitted to the Full Court of the Family Court for further consideration consistent with the reasons for judgment of the High Court.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal against return order dismissed; the removal was in breach of the father's rights of custody and therefore wrongful.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of harm had been met.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as it was not in breach of any rights of custody.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, retention wrongful and return ordered; the very high standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been met.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as it was not in breach of any rights of custody.

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

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; there had not been a breach of actually exercised rights of custody.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10 | Procedural Matters

Voluntary return with undertakings agreed between the parties in the requesting State following direct contact between the English judge seized of the return application and the Californian judges seized of the substantive custody and criminal aspects of the case.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Appeal allowed and return ordered with undertakings given; the standard of proof required under Article 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) had not been met.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Article 15 declaration refused

Article 15 declaration refused; the removal was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.

Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed; case remitted to the District Court (federal jurisdiction) for a ruling to be made on the merits of the return application.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the father had consented to the relocation of mother and child to Australia.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the trial court had been entitled to find that the standard required for Article 13(1)(b) had been reached.

Unanimous: no infringement of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz).

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Human Rights - Art. 20