Case Law Search

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Return refused

Retention wrongful but return refused: Article 13(1)(b) had been established. A return to Lithuania would expose the child to an intolerable situation given his settlement in the United Kingdom.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had been established.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Application dismissed

Application dismissed and return refused; the removal was not wrongful and the child was in any event settled in his new environment.

Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. 

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

Return refused

Alleged wrongful retention of the child when he was 9 years old – National of Argentina – Unmarried parents –Argentine father – Argentine mother – The child lived in Argentina until November 2014 – The return request was filed before the Chilean court on 22 April 2016 – Return refused – Main issues: habitual residence, rights of custody, settlement of the child, art. 13(1)(b) exception of grave risk, objections of the child to a return, procedural matters - the habitual residence of the child before the removal was in Argentina – the mother had rights of custody under the Convention, and thus retention was not wrongful and the father had no standing to request the international return – over two years elapsed between the arrival of the boy in Chile and the filing of the request, and the child was already settled in – return would certainly put the child at risk of endangering his physical and psychological integrity, due to his mother and him experiencing family violence – the child openly stated his wish not to return to Argentina.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child (UK national) removed from Singapore to Japan ― Parents married in 2010, living together mostly in Singapore and briefly in Japan ― Father Singaporean national, mother Indian national ― Divorce in 2014 ― Father provided with access right, Mother with right to primarily care for the child and freely relocate with the child to Japan ― Mother went to Japan with the child and returned to Singapore in 2014 ― Failed access, Father sought a modification of the relocation clause and the modality of access ― Mother definitively removed the child to Japan in 2015 ― Assistance of the Central Authority of Japan revoked in 2016 ― The father filed a petition for the child’s return to the Osaka Family Court in 2016 ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal dismissed and return refused by the Osaka High Court in 2016 ― Main issues: Habitual residence of the child ― Rights of custody of the father or the Singaporean court.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, removal wrongful and return ordered; the standard required under Article 12(2) had not been met to show the children were settled in their new environment. The standard required had been met under Article 13(1)(a) to show that the father had acquiesced in the removal, however, the court exercised its discretion to make a return order.

Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed; the District Court had abused its discretion in denying the motion to set aside.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed. Retention wrongful but return refused; the standard required under Article 12(2) had been reached to show the children were settled in their new environment.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the retention of the child was not wrongful since at the moment of retention the child had acquired a habitual residence in Massachusetts.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal was in breach of actually exercised rights of custody and was therefore wrongful, none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed aged less than one year old - Unmarried parents - Joint custody - Child lived in Greece until May 2010 - Application for return filed in April 2011 - Return ordered - Main issues: Settlement of the child, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return, procedural matters - Art. 12(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention only applies where return proceedings have been commenced after a period of more than one year has elapsed since the date of the wrongful removal

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Unanimous: no breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). There was no separate issue concerning the claims based on Articles 6 and 13. The authorities' lack of diligence in preventing the abduction was admittedly manifest but had been indemnified by the Spanish authorities. The authorities had not been lacking in diligence regarding the child's return, despite the absence of results in this respect.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the retention was wrongful but the child was now settled in her new environment.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Non-Convention Issues | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child removed at age 3 years  ― National of Canada and Japan ― Married parents ― Father and Mother married in Canada in 2009 and living there ― Joint custody at the time of wrongful retention ― Child lived in Canada until July 2013 ― Mother removed the child to Japan with Father’s consent ― A wrongful retention of the child after the entry into force of the Convention between Canada and Japan on 1 April 2014  ― Application for return filed with the courts of Japan in March 2015 ― Appeal dismissed and return ordered ― Main issues: Article 3 Habitual residence of the child ― The initial time of the wrongful retention ― Article 13(1)(a) Prior consent or subsequent approval by the father ― Abuse of rights by the father.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the trial judge had not erred in the exercise of his discretion in making a return order notwithstanding having found the children to be settled in their new environment and that they objected to a return.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return ordered

Removal wrongful ad return ordered; the children had not settled in their new environment and the objectives of the older children were not of the requisite standard to justify a non-return order being made.

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.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; the child was settled in his new environment and the Court exercised its discretion not to order his return.