Case Law Search

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

Removal wrongful and return would be ordered once suitable practical arrangements had been put in place; none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; retention wrongful and none of the exceptions proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return ordered

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Cross-appeal allowed in part and return refused; the standard had been met to show that the children would face a grave risk of harm if returned and the return petition could not be re-activated.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Non-Convention Issues | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child removed at age 3 years  ― National of Canada and Japan ― Married parents ― Father and Mother married in Canada in 2009 and living there ― Joint custody at the time of wrongful retention ― Child lived in Canada until July 2013 ― Mother removed the child to Japan with Father’s consent ― A wrongful retention of the child after the entry into force of the Convention between Canada and Japan on 1 April 2014  ― Application for return filed with the courts of Japan in March 2015 ― Appeal dismissed and return ordered ― Main issues: Article 3 Habitual residence of the child ― The initial time of the wrongful retention ― Article 13(1)(a) Prior consent or subsequent approval by the father ― Abuse of rights by the father.

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

Return ordered

The court ordered the return of the child to Armenia within four weeks.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return ordered

The court ordered the return of the child to the United States to the district of the court competent for the father's place of residence within two weeks of the decision taking effect.

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

Return refused

The court refused to order the return of the children. The Article 13(1)(b) exception had been made out and there would be a grave risk of harm to the children if they were returned.

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

Application dismissed

The Court dismissed the return application.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Article 15 Decision or Determination | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

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

Return ordered

The Court found that the retention of the children in South Africa was wrongful and ordered their return to New Zealand.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Case remitted to lower court

One child allegedly wrongfully retained at age one month – Married parents – Father national of Greece – Mother national of Switzerland – Child was born in Greece and went to France when he was one month old  – Case remitted to lower court – Main issue: Article 3 – habitual residence of an infant. Given the very young age of the child and the circumstances in which he arrived in France at only one month old and the fact that he has stayed there since with his mother, it was the responsibility of the judges in the lower courts to see if his social and family environment, and so the centre of his life, was in France, notwithstanding the initial intention of the parents regarding the return of the mother and child to Greece after their stay in France.

Return ordered

Two children wrongfully removed - Children lived in Poland until their removal to Canada – Return ordered – Main issue: COVID-19 delay to return due to travel restrictions – a date was set for the return to Poland accompanied by an order to account for the possibility that travel would be further delayed until August 2020. 

Return ordered

One child wrongfully retained at age 4 – Separated parents – Father national of Australia – Mother national of United Kingdom – Joint custody rights – Child lived in Australia until August 2019 – Application for return filed in November 2019 – Return ordered  – Main issue: COVID-19 – due to the current travel restrictions in the UK and in Australia, a date would be fixed for the protective measures to be in place and a date thereafter for the child to return.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered with undertakings offered

The Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the return of the child: the habitual residence of the child was in the United States, the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, but there was a grave risk that a return would expose the child to psychological harm and place him in an intolerable situation.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; both the English courts and the applicant father held rights of custody in respect of the child at the moment of the child's removal.