Case Law Search

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Return ordered; the "grave risk of harm" exception had not been established.

Issues Relating to Return

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Issues Relating to Return

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

Return ordered

Wrongful retention of a 4 year old child – Colombian and Salvadorian – Married parents –  Salvadorian mother – Shared rights of custody – the child lived in Colombia since birth until January 2019 – the return request was filed before the Colombian Central Authority in February 2019 – Return ordered – Main issues: habitual residence; removal and retention; art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception; procedural matters – The habitual residence of the child was in Colombia – The child was wrongfully retained, in breach of the parents’ jointly-exercised rights of custody – The grave risk the child would be exposed to was not established – Measures were ordered to ensure the child’s return to Colombia, such as his return together with his father and his preparation toward the return

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful, the child being habitually resident in Canada at the relevant date.

Non-Convention Issues

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

European Court of Human Rights held, by 5 votes to 2, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In 1980 Hague Convention proceedings national authorities were required to examine whether it would be appropriate to hear the child as part of their decision making.

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

Case remitted to lower court

Decision set aside and matter remitted for rehearing. 

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Challenge to legality dismissed; the retention was wrongful but the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) had been met to show that the father had consented. The return was therefore refused.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

The High Court allowed the appeal in both cases. The cases were remitted to the Full Court of the Family Court for further consideration consistent with the reasons for judgment of the High Court.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed, removal wrongful but return refused; the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had been made out.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the removal of the child did not breach any rights of custody and was not therefore wrongful.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Challenge to legality dismissed; there had been no breach of custody rights. The application was therefore dismissed.

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

Challenge to legality dismissed; the child's objections satisfied the standard required under Article 13(2) of the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, granting of Article 15 declaration confirmed

Appeal dismissed - issue of Article 15 declaration confirmed; the House of Lords ruled that the order of 13 March 1996 had given the father custody rights and thereafter the retention of the child in Ireland was wrongful within the terms of Article 3.

Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the applicant father was found, in a majority verdict, not to have possessed rights of custody for the purposes of the Hague Convention at the time of the removal.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the trial court; the removal was wrongful but a determination had to be made as to whether any of the exceptions were applicable.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal dismissed and return upheld, subject to undertakings; neither Art. 3(1) UNCRC nor Art. 8 ECHR, as interpreted by the Grand Chamber in Neulinger, required a re-appraisal of the interpretation of the Hague Convention in England & Wales. It was accepted that Art. 13(1)(b) should be interpreted without any additional gloss being applied to its terms, but this did not impact upon the outcome of the appeal.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal had proper grounds to hold that the retention was wrongful, and had observed correctly that the father had acquiesced in the child's residence in France.