Case Law Search

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

The Court of Appeal, in a majority ruling, held that the father had acquiesced in the removal of the children. The case was then remitted to the High Court to exercise its discretion whether or not to grant a return order.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return refused

Return refused; the retention of the child was wrongful but that the father had acquiesced in terms of Article 13(1)(a). The court exercised its discretion not to order the return of the child.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the child had acquired a habitual residence in Australia at the time of the removal. The court further found that the mother had not acquiesced in the removal.

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

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the retention was wrongful for it was in breach of rights of custody vested in the English court.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | 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)(a) nor Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the child lost his Australian habitual residence upon leaving that State for the parents had agreed that the child should relocate to the United Kingdom. Consequently the child was not wrongfully retained in Scotland once the mother changed her mind about the relocation.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the trial judge had been justified in finding that the standard required under Article 13(2) had been met in respect of the older boy and that the younger boy would face an intolerable situation if sent back alone.

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

The appeal as it related to the older child was dismissed. The appeal as it related to the younger child was allowed. The court ordered the return of the younger child to England, notwithstanding that the siblings would be separated.

Procedural Matters

The state court order was vacated as entered subsequent to the filing of the notice of removal. Nevertheless, the matter was dismissed as moot since the child had already been returned.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Return ordered

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the grave risk of harm envisaged by Art. 13 (1)(b) was not proved.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Human Rights - Art. 20

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

Return refused

Return refused; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered

Return ordered; the children objected to a return, but in exercising its subsequent discretion the court found that there was simply so much in dispute and so much that required resolution that the appropriate forum for the substantive custody proceedings was South Africa.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered: the removal was wrongful, being in breach of actually exercised rights of custody, and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the court found the father had a right of veto over the removal of the child from the jurisdiction and given that he was exercising his access rights it was ruled that he would have exercised this custodial right had it not been for the unilateral nature of the removal. Consequently the removal of the child was wrongful.