Case Law Search

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.

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

Case remitted to lower court

A court is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying a Hague Convention petition for return of a child to a foreign country once the court has found that return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm.

Case remanded to District Court to determine whether the measures considered are adequate to order return in light of the District Court’s factual findings concerning the risk to the child, bearing in mind that the Convention sets as a primary goal the safety of the child.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of a girl when she was four years old - Mexican – Argentine mother – Mexican father – Married parents – The girl lived in Puerto Aventuras, Estado de Quintana Roo, Mexico, until February 2020 – The return request was filed before the Argentine Central Authority – Appeal allowed, return ordered -  Main Issues: habitual residence, removal and retention, grave risk exception, procedural matters, commitments – the girl’s habitual residence was in Mexico – the girl was wrongfully retained in Argentina by the mother because she did not return to Mexico upon expiration of the term in the father’s travel authorisation – The mother did not show that the family violence situation reported posed a grave risk to the girl; neither did she prove the lack of protection measures in Mexico – the interpretation standards of the 1980 HCCH Convention apply to the cases governed by the Inter-American Convention – Measures were taken to guarantee the safe return of the child to her State of habitual residence.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of a girl when she was 4 years old – Guatemalan and American – separated parents – the girl was born in the United States, as proved by her birth certificate – the Central Authority of Guatemala filed the return request before court in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala – appeal dismissed, return ordered – main issues: habitual residence; removal and retention; settlement of the child; interpretation of the Convention – the habitual residence of the child before the wrongful retention was in the United States, as evidenced by her birth certificate and medical records – the wrongful retention took place when the father did not return her to the United States on the agreed date after her holiday with the grandparents, to which the mother had consented – the immediate return ought to be ordered since the child had spent less than a year in the requested State – the HCCH Convention on Child Abduction does not require the conduction of socioeconomical or psychological studies on the parents in order to make a decision on return