Case Law Search

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

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

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.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered forthwith subject to undertakings. The child had been wrongfully removed and none of the exceptions applied.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The court found that the Convention was not applicable to the case but dismissed the appeal on the basis that the child's interests were best served by a return to the United States.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; in the absence of any evidence in rebuttal from the applicant father the court accepted that there was a grave risk the boys would face an intolerable situation if returned.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Best Interests of the Child

Case remitted to lower court

Wrongful retention of a child when she was 5 years old - US national - parents married - father US national - mother Colombian national - both parents had custody rights under the Convention - child lived in the US until 19 December 2015 - return application was filed before the US Central Authority on 13 June 2016 - lower court was ordered to make a new judgment in the international return proceedings, taking into account the child's views - main issues: aims of the Convention - Preamble, settlement of the child, acquiescense, art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, child's objections to return – the best interests of the child is to be returned to his or her center of life without delay, unless one of the grounds of exception is proven - assessment of the child's settlement is appropriate only if one year has elapsed between the wrongful conduct and the date of filing of the international return application - the grave risk must be greater than the natural hardship that may result from a change of his or her residence or the dislocation of the current living group - the decision on the application of the exception of Art. 13(2) requires consideration of the voice of the child who is of sufficient age and maturity.

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.

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 | Best Interests of the Child

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.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Issues Relating to Return

Return refused

Return refused. The father did not have rights of custody within the meaning of Article 3. 

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return refused

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return ordered

Return ordered.

Note that the mother later appealed this decision, arguing that the judge was wrong to dismiss the Article 13(1)(a) acquiescence and Article 13(1)(b) exceptions to return. The appeal was dismissed and the decision upheld. See case: Re B (1980 Hague Convention: Article 13(a)/(b)), [2025] EWCA Civ 1603, INCADAT ID1671.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return ordered

Return ordered. The Social Services of Naples had rights of custody and removal of the child from Italy was wrongful. 

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Two children wrongfully removed at ages nine and seven – Married parents – Shared parental custody – Children lived in Spain until 5 February 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 17 February 2016 –Application dismissed – Main issue(s): Habitual residence - is understood to mean the actual centre of the child's life, which is determined by the factual circumstances; Consent - the departure of the spouse does not require any approval by the other; the only thing requiring approval is the change of the children's place of residence abroad; Grave risk - must be interpreted restrictively: meaning a serious danger, initial language and reintegration difficulties typically do not constitute a serious danger.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

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

Return refused

Return refused. 

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

Return ordered

Return ordered.

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

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

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters | Non-Convention Issues

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; but if the mother were to be given permission by the Northern Ireland High Court to raise one of the Article 13 exceptions, then the return order could be stayed until the latter application was heard.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered subject to undertakings by both parents; the retention of the child had been wrongful, and the grave risk of harm exception had not been established.