Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and non-return order upheld; the retention was wrongful but the child would face a grave risk of harm if returned.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the children had valid objections to a return and in the light of fresh evidence considered on appeal, a non-return order was made.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions raised applied.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; by a 2:1 majority the Court found that Article 13(1)(a) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had been activated, one judge found that this was on the basis of consent, the other as a result of acquiescence.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Removal wrongful and return ordered; Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Wrongful removal of a child when he was 7 years old - Argentine - Unmarried parents - Paraguayan mother - The child lived in Paraguay from December 2016 to October 2017 – Return to Paraguay refused – Main issues: habitual residence, objections of the child to a return – The Supreme Court of Buenos Aires held that the child’s habitual residence was in Paraguay, and found that the removal to Argentina was  wrongful since it breached the mother’s rights of custody under the Paraguayan law – The court considered that the child´s objection to return was established since the child expressed at all stages of the proceedings his complete refusal to return to Paraguay, alleging mistreatment by classmates and relatives.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 |

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Daughter born in 2007 and son in 2012 ― Father, mother and both children previously Sri Lankan nationals and naturalized in Japan in 2017 ― Father living in Japan since 1999 and mother since 2002 ― Parents married in 2002 ― Father principally moved to Sri Lanka with two children in July 2017, but maintained his job, home and residence registration in Japan ― Mother also travelled back and forth ― Children enrolled at school in Sri Lanka in September 2017, but went back to their elementary school in Japan during long school breaks ― Parents separated since August 2018, followed by petitions for a custody order and divorce to the Osaka Family Court ― Mother retains son since April 2019 in Japan ― Father returned to Sri Lanka with daughter in May 2019 ― Father filed petition for the son’s return to the Osaka Family Court in June 2019 ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal dismissed and return refused by the Osaka High Court in October 2019 ― Main issue: Habitual residence of the child.

Non-Convention Issues

Return refused

The return of the child was barred as a consequence of his pending asylum appeal.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of two children, a boy aged 4 and a girl aged 6 – Nationals of the United States, Costa Rica and El Salvador – The children resided in Lourdes de San Vito de Coto Crus, Puntarenas, Costa Rica at the moment of the removal to El Salvador – The return application was submitted before the Central Authority of the Republic of El Salvador – Appeal allowed, return ordered – Main issues: removal and retention, rights of custody, objections of the child to a return, procedural issues – The habitual residence of the children before the removal was in Costa Rica – The children were wrongfully retained by their mother in El Salvador because they did not return to Costa Rica after a month of vacation as agreed– Both parents had rights of custody – The hearing process of the children and the taking of their opinions into consideration were not carried out properly – The debate over the merits of the rights of custody unnecessarily delayed the return proceeding, in contravention of the nature and purpose of the Convention.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

2 children allegedly wrongfully removed at ages 4 and 7 – Nationals of the United States of America – Parents pending divorce – Father national of USA – Mother national of USA, UK and Ireland – Parents were still married at the time of mother’s wrongful retention – Children lived in Illinois, USA (until 8 June 2022) – Application for return filed with the courts of Illinois, USA on 2 September 2022 – Return ordered 28 February 2023 – Main issues: Where there is a grave risk of harm to the children under Article 13(1)(b) the analysis of protective measures should not be limited to the measures available but should also consider whether these measures would be effective in the specific circumstances.

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

Return refused

Return refused.

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

Proceedings dismissed and costs awarded against the children's litigation guardian.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and imprisonment of parent upheld; under the law of New Jersey the removal of the child had been wrongful and the mother in not returning the child was in contempt of court.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Application inadmissible; all elements of the complaints were found to be manifestly ill-founded.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered with undertakings offered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions was upheld.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered.

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

Appeal dismissed and preliminary ruling upheld; the father held rights of custody at the time of the removal of the children.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and the exceptions inapplicable.

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

Appeal allowed and case remitted to trial court; determination to be made as to what undertakings, if any, would be sufficient to ensure the safety of the children upon their return to Mexico pending the outcome of custody proceedings.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the standard required under Art 13(1)(b) had not been met.