Case Law Search

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

Return ordered

Returned ordered; neither Article 13(1)(a) nor Article 13(1)(a) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed; refusal to make a custody order upheld. The Court held that Article 16 prohibits a custody decision on the merits where a return order has been made but not yet enforced.

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

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the Agency was found to have rights of custody, while the child was deemed to be habitually resident in the USA. Article 13(1)(b) was not proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Rights of Access - Art. 21 | Procedural Matters

Application for access under Article 21 allowed to proceed.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the children were habitually resident in Australia at the relevant date.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the children had lost their Californian habitual residence. Consequently there could be no wrongful retention.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the girls had lost their New Zealand habitual residence at the time of the alleged retention. Consequently there could be no wrongful retention.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the majority held that the agreement that mother and child could return to Scotland if the relationship failed remained in existence, therefore the father was regarded as having consented to the removal.

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

Appeal allowed; the retention was wrongful as the child had been habitually resident in Australia at the relevant date. The case was remitted to the District Court to rule on whether any of the exceptions might apply.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of physical harm had not been met.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Return ordered, subject to undertakings; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the children would face a grave risk of harm had not been met.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, but, on the strength of the child's objection to a return to Switzerland, the court exercised its discretion under Article 13(2) not to send her back.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal of the child was wrongful and none of the exceptions was applicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the father had acquiesced in the retention of the children.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; there had been a wrongful retention and none of the exceptions had been established.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; there had been a wrongful removal and there was insufficient evidence to indicate consent on the part of the applicant mother.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful, the children being habitually resident in England in April 1995.

Return refused

Return refused; the father had waived his Convention rights when he dismissed the substantive proceedings brought in the State of the child's habitual residence.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in Spain at the relevant date. The child was not wrongfully retained in Ohio, as the United States had become the child's habitual residence.

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, but on the strength of the child's objection to a return to Switzerland, the court exercised its discretion under Article 13(2) not to order a return.