Case Law Search

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.

Issues Relating to Return

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed; the application for the child's independent representation was manifestly groundless and the mother failed to assert any genuinely new circumstance.

Procedural Matters

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed insofar as it was admissible. In particular, the mother had failed to prove the existence of acquiescence or a grave risk of danger.

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

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, best interests of the child – 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 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The retention was considered wrongful. The appeal was considered unfounded and lacking any legal basis since the mother had not demonstrated the existence of substantive or procedural errors which would have served as a basis to overturn the decision that ordered the return.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed; return ordered.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 6 - Divorced parents - Mother a national of France and Israel - Mother had custody, father extensive access rights - Child lived in Israel until summer 2015 - Return proceedings initiated in March 2016 - Return ordered - Main issues: rights of custody, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return, human rights - A parent has "rights of custody" under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention if he has extensive access rights and the right to consent to change of the child's residence - The Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception of the Convention does not apply where the child would have access to satisfcatory treatment for an illness in the State of habitual residence

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully removed at age 13 - Divorced parents - Father had been granted custody - Child lived in Germany until March 2010 - Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Germany on 7 June 2010 - Return refused - Main issues: Rights of custody - The parent who issued the return request had not been exercising his custody rights at the time of removal, and therefore the removal could not be considered wrongful within the meaning of the 1980 Child Abduction Hague Convention

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return order upheld, but the orders for costs which had been made by the lower courts in favour of the father were set aside.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal was allowed and the decisions of the first instance and the Appellate Court were annulled. Although the removal was considered wrongful, the Court held that the return should be refused under the terms of Articles 13 (1)(b) and 20 of the Hague Child Abduction Convention.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The mother's allegation of grave risk was not found to be proved.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered.  

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

Return refused

The court found that the father acquiesced in the children remaining in Canada, and refused to order the return of the children under the the Article 13(a) exception.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 |

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

one child wrongfully retained between age 4 and 5– National of unknown –unmarried parents – Father national of unknown – Mother national of unknown – Shared parental responsibility – Child lived in Portugal until 10 March 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 23 April 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: Removal and Retention – The father could not prove that the mother had given her consent for the child to remain in Switzerland and the mother filed an appeal within the one year period set out in Article 12.

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.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application inadmissible, there had been no manifest error in analysis of the child's habitual residence.