Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful, the children being habitually resident in Germany at the time they were taken.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the children were habitually resident in Germany at the time of the removal, albeit the primary reasoning of the trial court was not followed.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the children were now settled in their new environment and it would not be appropriate for them to be returned.

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

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; a grave risk of harm pursuant to Art 13(1)(b) had not been established to the level required under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed; the father's right to veto the removal of his child from Chile, under court order and Chilean statute did not afford him a custodial right and thereby a remedy for the purposes of the Convention.

Issues Relating to Return

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; there had not been a breach of Art. 6 or Art. 8 of the ECHR.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Return refused

Retention wrongful but return refused: Article 13(1)(b) had been established. A return to Lithuania would expose the child to an intolerable situation given his settlement in the United Kingdom.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Article 15 Decision or Determination

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; alternative conclusions submitted by the New Zealand court depending on the factual determinations made by the Australian court seised of the return proceedings.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but the child would face a grave risk of harm if returned.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

Unanimous: breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The authorities had failed to deploy adequate efforts to enable the mother to regain contact with her children.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

Unanimous: breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): the father had waited two years for the judgment ordering the child's return, and the mother's obstructive behaviour had been comforted by a judgment awarding custody to her even though a judgment ordering return had also been delivered.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

The Hague Convention proceedings in Slovakia were held not to be in compliance with the requirements of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

1 child wrongfully removed at age 6 – Unmarried parents – The mother had day-to-day care of the child and the father had supervised contact – Child lived in New Zealand until May 2016 – Application for return heard at first instance in December 2016 – First appeal: application dismissed – Second appeal: return ordered – Main issues: rights of custody, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, undertakings / conditions for return – The finding that there is no ”grave risk” within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) “while at the same time foreshadowing a preparedness to impose conditions on the order for return” can be consistent - fulfilment of conditions prior to the child’s return should be feasible and cannot place the taking parent in a better situation than she was before the removal

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully removed at age 4 – National of Poland – Married parents – Father national of Poland – Mother national of Poland – Parents exercised joint rights of custody – Child lived in Norway until June 2012 and then Poland until December 2012 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Norway in December 2012 –Return refused – Main issue: Article 3 – habitual residence – the child was habitually resident in Norway and so the return to Norway from Poland did not constitute an unlawful removal.

One child wrongfully removed at age 1 – National of Israel – Married parents  – Mother national of Russia – Joint custody rights – Child lived in Israel until August 1996 – Application for return filed in October 1998 – Return refused – Main issue(s): Article 13(1)(b) – there was a grave risk of psychological harm to the child, severe enough to invoke Article 13(1)(b), even though its cause is mostly related to the threat to the mother.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The mother’s complaint appeal was rejected and the father’s application for the return of the child was approved. It was not possible to establish any reason why the child’s wellbeing would be endangered in the event that he were returned.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The complaint appeal was rejected and it was once again ordered that the child be returned. No evidence was found that the child’s wellbeing was in danger due to the fact, that the father lost custody of his other daughter because of sexual abuse and his alleged paedophilic tendencies.

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

Return ordered with undertakings offered

2 children wrongfully removed at ages 4 and 7– Nationals of Canada and Norway – Married parents – Father national of Norway – Mother national of Canada – Both parents had rights of custody – Children lived in Hong Kong until 21 September 2018 – Application for return filed with the courts of Ontario (Canada) at the end of January 2019 – Return ordered – Main issue: Article 13(1)(b) Grave Risk – Evidence did not meet the 13(1)(b) threshold. Court considered affidavit and legal opinion from lawyer in Hong Kong – Undertakings – Undertakings necessary to secure safe, prompt and seamless return of children and to provide for transition between return order and when children are placed before the Hong Kong courts.

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

Return refused

2 children (twins) wrongfully removed at age 3 - Nationals of Canada and the United States of America - Married parents - Father national of the United States of America - Mother national of Canada - Joint custody - Children lived in the United States of America until October 2013 - Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Manitoba on February 2014 - Return refused - Main issues: consent to removal, Art 13(1) (b) grave risk exception to return, undertakings - Consent and acquiescence, within the meaning of Art. 13(1)(a), must be given “their plain, ordinary meaning”, and evidence to establish consent or acquiescence must be “clear and cogent” - The provision by one parent of time-limited travel consent is insufficient to prove that the parent consented to the removal or retention - Exceptionally, return may be refused under Art. 13(1)(b) if there is compelling evidence of severe long-standing and escalating physical and psychological harm inflicted on the taking parent and the children