Case Law Search

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return refused

The Supreme Court (third instance) determined that the children’s habitual residence had changed from the United States to Denmark during the period in which the father consented to them being in Denmark (December 2010 - February 2013). By the time that the father had opposed the children's continued residence in Denmark they were habitually resident there therefore not unlawfully retained. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the retention was not wrongful and that the children should not be returned to their father in the United States.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child (UK national) removed from Singapore to Japan ― Parents married in 2010, living together mostly in Singapore and briefly in Japan ― Father Singaporean national, mother Indian national ― Divorce in 2014 ― Father provided with access right, Mother with right to primarily care for the child and freely relocate with the child to Japan ― Mother went to Japan with the child and returned to Singapore in 2014 ― Failed access, Father sought a modification of the relocation clause and the modality of access ― Mother definitively removed the child to Japan in 2015 ― Assistance of the Central Authority of Japan revoked in 2016 ― The father filed a petition for the child’s return to the Osaka Family Court in 2016 ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal dismissed and return refused by the Osaka High Court in 2016 ― Main issues: Habitual residence of the child ― Rights of custody of the father or the Singaporean court.

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

Return refused

Removal wrongful, but return refused; the oldest child had valid objections to a return to Australia and it was accepted that the siblings should not be split up; for separate reasons, linked to the father's past employment, all the children would face a grave risk of harm if returned.

Return ordered

One child wrongfully removed at age 12 – Joint parental responsibility, mother the primary carer of the child and the father had access rights – Child lived in Spain until February 2020  – Return ordered – Main issue: Article 13(1)(b), COVID-19 – the risk of physical harm presented by the pandemic – the risk of contracting COVID-19 during the return travel from the UK to Spain was not sufficient to amount to the “grave risk” of physical harm required by Art. 13(b).

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

Return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal to Panama was considered wrongful and the grave risk exception of Article 13(1)(b) raised by the mother was not established.

Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Wrongful retention of a 1-year-old boy – Costa Rican – unmarried parents – Nicaraguan father – Dominican mother – Joint custody rights – The boy lived in Costa Rica until January 2018 – The return request was filed before a Nicaraguan court in January 2019 – Return ordered – Main issues: procedural matters – The parents agreed that the child would return to Costa Rica in the company of his father once the latter was assured that he would not be criminally sanctioned for child abduction.

Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; Article 20 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was not engaged by the facts of the case.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Sweden at the time of the retention and the standard required under Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention to establish a grave risk of harm had not been met.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return upheld. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions raised was applicable.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Rights of Access - Art. 21

Application allowed and independent children's lawyer appointed.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Article 15 declaration refused

Article 15 declaration: the removal of the child was not wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 as the father did not have rights of custody on the relevant date.

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

Legal challenge dismissed and decision refusing to return the child to Germany confirmed. The removal had been wrongful but Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention |

Return refused

Lawful retention of two girls - Uruguayan – Separated parents – The girls lived in Brazil until 19 April 2019, when the mother removed them to Uruguay – The mother filed a return application with the Brazilian Central Authority – Return refused – Main issues: removal and retention, consent, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, procedural matters, interpretation of the Convention – There was no wrongful retention, as the mother actually removed them voluntarily to Uruguay – The mother had consented that the girls live in Uruguay by removing them to that country and delivering the necessary documents for them to resume their life there to the father – There was a grave risk due to the high emotional disturbance they suffered as a consequence of the physical, psychological and sexual violence they had suffered in Brazil – The proceedings are autonomous and specific for international child abduction cases under Uruguayan Law 18,895 – The children’s best interests in this case had been furthered by preventing them from returning to an environment of sexual, psychological and emotional abuse.

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

Return ordered

Wrongful retention of an adolescent in Uruguay – Custody right exercised solely by the mother – The adolescent lived in Spain with his mother for 4 years – The return application was filed before the Spanish Central Authority – Return ordered – Main issues: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, objections of the child to a return – The father did not prove any situation in which there was a grave risk actually making return intolerable and exposing the adolescent gravely – The adolescent voiced a preference but there was no true objection in the sense of an unwavering repudiation towards return.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Return ordered

Wrongful removal of a 12-year old child – Custody rights were exercised by the child’s aunt and her husband – The child lived in Costa Rica since he was 2 years old until February 2019 – Return ordered – Main Issues: habitual residence; rights of custody; jurisdiction issues – The habitual residence of the child is where his centre of life is, irrespective of the child’s nationality – Even though the mother had parental authority over the child, the rights of custody were exercised by the child’s aunt and her husband, and thus removal was wrongful – Return proceedings are not aimed at determining the parent’s ability to take care of and raise the child.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return order upheld; the retention was wrongful the child being habitually resident in France at the relevant date, and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Hague Convention.

Non-Convention Issues

Case remitted to lower court

One child aged 12 - National of Ukraine - Unmarried parents - Father national of Ukraine - Mother national of Ukraine - Mother married British national and gained spousal visa in 2017 - Child lived in Ukraine until 2018 when mother took child to UK - Mother wrongfully retained child - Father gained return order - Mother and child returned to Ukraine in May 2019 - Mother wrongfully removed child in October 2019 and returned to UK - Father granted second return order in July 2020 - Mother made asylum application for child on 20 October 2020 and applied to stay 1980 Hague Convention proceedings on 26 October 2020 - Child granted asylum on 28 May 2021 - Court overturned return order because of the child's asylum status - Father appealed this - Main issues: art.13(1)(b), art.13(2), and asylum claim - The grant of asylum did not automatically nullify Hague proceedings - Appeal allowed and case remitted for urgent case management hearing.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return order confirmed; whilst the children objected to a return the standard required under Article 13(2) had not been reached.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Application dismissed

Application dismissed and return refused; the removal was not wrongful and the child was in any event settled in his new environment.