Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the return of the children.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

The judge ordered the return of the child but stated that the order would not take effect until protective measures had been put in place in the Netherlands.

Interpretation of the Convention | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered

The judge ordered that the children should be returned to Quebec within 14 days.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 7 – National of Poland –unmarried parents– Father national of Poland – Mother national of Poland – Disputed custody rights– Child lived in Poland until August 2014 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Poland in September 2014 – Return ordered – Main issues: Article 3 – Rights of custody –  the father had limited custody rights but these extended to the right to decide the child’s habitual residence and therefore the father had rights of custody within the meaning of the Convention; Article 13(1)(b) – Grave risk of harm - there were no grounds for concluding that return would be “clearly unfavourable to the child” or that he would most likely suffer harm if returned. Therefore the exception did not apply; Article 13 – Child’s objections - the fact that the child  said he wanted to live with his mother  was not a ground for concluding that the child was opposed to returning to Poland, therefore the exception did not apply.

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Two children wrongfully retained at age 3 – Nationals of Canada and Mexico –divorced parents – Father national of Canada – Mother national of Mexico – Mother was primary carer and father had rights of access – Children lived in Mexico until 2014 – Return ordered and appeal dismissed – Main issue(s): Article 13(1)(b) – The argued risk of psychological harm to one of the children if returned to Mexico due to the lack of autism therapies was not sufficient to invoke the Article 13(1)(b) exception.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of two children – Venezuelan nationals – Married parents – Both parents had custody rights – The return application was filed before the Chilean Central Authority in November 2018 – Return ordered – Main issues: consent, removal and retention, procedural matters – the evidence proffered by the mother was not sufficient to prove the father’s will in the travel authorisation – The father had consented to the removal, but not a change in residence, and thus there was a wrongful retention – Safe return measures were adopted for the children to undergo return with the least harm possible.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

The European Court of Human Rights held by sixteen votes to one that, in the event of the enforcement of the return order, there would be a violation of the mother and child's right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

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

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(1)(a) and (b) and Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Non-Convention Issues

Return ordered

Return ordered. The Court denied the mother’s requests for a stay and/or an adjournment of the return application proceedings on the basis of her applications for refugee protection.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed, return refused. The first instance judge had erred in her approach to determining whether there was a grave risk to the children under Article 13(1)(b).

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Best Interests of the Child

Return refused

Return refused based on the elder child's objections, the fact that the children were now settled in the USA and the grave risk of harm should they be returned to Mexico.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

2 children wrongfully retained at ages 11 and 8 - Nationals of Canada - Married parents - Father national of Canada - Mother national of Canada - Father transferred physical custody in a notarised letter to the mother for the period April 2013 to August 2014, to allow the children to enroll in a  Canadian school - Children lived in Germany until April 2013 - Application for return filed with the Superior Court of Justice (Family Court Branch) in June 2014 - Return ordered - Main issues: habitual residence, rights of custody, objections of the child to return - A parent cannot unilaterally change the habitual residence of a child during a time-limited period of consensual stay in another State agreed to by the other parent - Contemplation of an extension of such a period of consensual stay does not defeat its time-limited nature - Evidence of the child settling in his new environment is irrelevant if the application for return is brought within one year of the removal or retention - Where rights of custody have been transferred by one parent to another for the sole purpose of enrolling children in school in a given State, the parent who transferred those rights exercises them when the taking parent refuses to return the child, or would have exercised them but for the removal or retention - A child’s objection to return that is unsubstantial or merely expresses a preference for one place over another is insufficient grounds for refusing to order return under Art. 13(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention

Issues Relating to Return

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Return order set aside.

Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return refused

The court reversed and remanded the case.

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

Return refused

Return refused. Separating the siblings would present a grave risk of psychological harm to both children, within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b).

Non-Convention Issues

Application dismissed

Motion to Strike granted, equitable estoppel argument is stricken. The 1980 Hague Convention provides for limited exceptions to return and estoppel is not among them.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Leave to appeal refused and dismissal of the return application therefore confirmed; the removal was not wrongful since the child still retained his habitual residence in England at that time.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Return refused

1 child wrongfully retained at age 5 – National of Croatia and Germany – Married parents– Father national of Croatia and Germany – Mother national of Croatia – Joint parental responsibility  according to the German Civil Code – Child lived in Germany until December 2015 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Croatia on 22 March 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Croatia on 30 May 2016 – Return refused – Main issues: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return, Objections of the Child to a Return, Procedural matters  – The Court refused the request for return of the child under Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Unlawful retention of a one-year-old child – Argentine national – Married parents – Father was an Argentine national – Mother was a Uruguayan national – Both parents held custodial rights – The child lived in Argentina until July 2015 – The restitution request was submitted to the Argentine Central Authority – Appeal granted, return ordered – Key issues: Article 3 (habitual residence), Articles 3 and 12 (removal and retention), Article 13(1)(b) (grave risk exception), Best interests of the child – The child's habitual residence was Argentina – The retention was deemed unlawful as the mother lacked the other parent’s consent – No grave risk was established, as Argentina had judicial mechanisms to protect the mother and child.