Case Law Search

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The Hague Convention, as complemented by the Brussels II a Regulation imposed the return of the children to Spain, considering that adequate protection measures had been taken.

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

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Argentina on the relevant date and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under Article 13.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Removal wrongful; however Convention proceedings adjourned pending determination of substantive custody proceedings in the State of the child's habitual residence.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

By a 4:3 majority: No infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the District Court; the trial court had erred in its conclusions on habitual residence, actual exercise of custody rights and consent.

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

Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal had rightly found the children's retention to be wrongful and the exceptions inapplicable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court.

The court noted that, this case provides a clear example of the additional complications and potential obstacles which arise when parents disagree about whether their children should be permitted to travel between states which do not have reciprocal legal arrangements in force.

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed. There were no grounds for reversing the decision of the District Court.

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 exception asserted inapplicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the conditions asserted was applicable.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had been established.

Interpretation of the Convention

Lower-court judgment reversed and applications dismissed as having become pointless.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Non-Convention Issues

Appeal allowed in part; the Court of Appeal held by a majority that the youngest sibling was not habitually resident in England and Wales. The Court unanimously upheld the finding that the three older siblings had retained their habitual residence in England and Wales after being retained in Pakistan.

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Principal appeal inadmissible. The father was concealing his real address, thereby nullifying his appeal.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Rights of Access - Art. 21

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and petition dismissed; the retention of the child was not wrongful as it did not breach any actually exercised rights of custody.

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

Confirmation of the order of 8 March 2006, in that it ordered the child's return; reversal of judgment of 23 March 2006. The removal was wrongful and the return could not be denied on the basis of Article 13 because adequate protection measures had been taken in Italy.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; there was no wrongful retention as the child was habitually resident in Hong Kong on the relevant date.

Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the child objected to being returned and had attained an age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to take account of his views.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court decision and ordered the return of the child.

Appeal dismissed, return refused

The court considered the jurisprudence on habitual residence and upheld the finding of the first instance judge: that the child’s residence in the USA had not acquired the necessary degree of stability to become habitual.  On the established principles, there was no basis to interfere with the judge’s finding.