Case Law Search

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.

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

Appeal dismissed and return of older sibling ordered; his removal had been wrongful and the Article 13(1)(b) exception had not been established.

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

Return refused

Return refused. 

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. 

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal of the child was not wrongful as it was not in breach of any legally recognised right of custody.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the grandparents did not hold rights of custody at the time of the removal of the child.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed; the child had not had a habitual residence in Greece.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Wrongful retention of a child approximately 12 years old at the time of judgment – national of Argentina and Uruguay – separated parents – father of Argentine nationality – mother of Uruguayan nationality – child born in Argentina and lived there until around age 4, then moved to Uruguay with his mother – application for international return initiated on August 19, 2020, before the Uruguayan Central Authority – appeal dismissed, return denied – key issues: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, child’s objection to return; procedural matters – returning the child would have entailed a grave risk of further psychological harm – the child's opposition to returning to Uruguay, considering his age and maturity, was decisive in denying the return – the Court indicated that mediation could be reopened to address the child's re-establishment of ties with his mother.

Undertakings

Appeal dismissed, return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal dismissed and return ordered, subject to undertakings.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return refused

Return refused. The children were at grave risk of harm if they returned to Spain and were settled in the USA. 

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

Return refused

Application denied and return refused; although the retention was wrongful, Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

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

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; removal was wrongful but the mother had proved Article 13(1)(b) to the standard required under the Convention. No undertakings had been proposed which could mitigate the harm of returning the child.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed, return refused. The retention was wrongful but several exceptions applicable.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful, being in breach of the father's right of custody.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The retention was wrongful and the exceptions raised inapplicable.

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.

Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Case remitted to lower court

1 child wrongfully retained at age 5 – National of Croatia and Germany – Married parents– Father national of Croatia and Germany – Mother national of Croatia – Joint custody according to the German Civil Code and under Croatian law – Child lived in Germany until December2015 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Croatia on 22 March 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Croatia on 30 May 2016 - The Court granted the appeal, set aside the first instance judgment and remitted the case for a new trial to the court of first instance – Main issues: Rights of Custody, Brussels IIa Regulation –The first instance court should have applied the Brussels II a Regulation, including its requirement for return to be ordered in Art. 13(1)(b) cases in which it has been established that adequate arrangements have been made to secure the protection of the child upon his return.

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

On appeal, the lower instance decision of the Osaka Family Court was upheld and the Osaka High Court ordered the return of the children, C and D, from Japan to France. The Court rejected the father’s argument that the return of the children should be refused because the mother had not exercised her custody rights and because of the children’s views.

Interpretation of the Convention | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Guidance on the application of the Convention issued

2 children retained at ages 11 and 8 – Nationals of Canada – Married parents – Father national of Canada – Mother national of Canada – Father transferred physical custody in a notarised letter to the mother for the period April 2013 to August 2014, to allow the children to enroll in a Canadian school – Children lived in Germany until April 2013 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Germany on 11 April 2014 – Return decision of the Court of Appeal of Ontario of 13 September 2016 was appealed to the Supreme Court, but the children were returned to Germany before the Court rendered its judgment; despite the appeal being moot, the Court considered the issues raised to be important and in need of clarification – Main issues: interpretation of the Convention, habitual residence, objections of the child to a return, procedural matters – To ensure uniformity of State practice, courts should generally adopt the interpretation of the Convention that has gained the most support in other foreign domestic courts – The “hybrid approach” to determining habitual residence (which considers all relevant factual links and circumstances in their entirety, instead of focusing either on parental intention or the child’s acclimatisation) should be followed – Courts should adopt a non-technical and straightforward approach to considering the child’s objections to return – It is up to the judicial authorities to ensure that the State lives up to its obligations to act expeditiously under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention – Convention proceedings should be judge-led, not party-driven, and judges should not hesitate to use their authority to expedite proceedings