Case Law Search

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.

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