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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. 

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).

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

Case remitted to lower court

Decision set aside and matter remitted for rehearing. 

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

Return refused

Return refused.

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

Return ordered

Order for return of the child to Japan. 

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

Return refused

Return refused. Though the mother was indeed wrongfully retaining the child, by the time the father made an application for return the child was settled in England and habitually resident there. 

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

Return refused

Return refused. 

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

Return ordered

Return ordered.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Procedural Matters | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

First instance judgment affirmed, appeal denied. The wrongful retention began on 4 January 2023. The father did not successfully file a petition until April 2024 and the child was found to be well-settled in the USA. The lower court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order the child’s return to Greece. 

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful removal of a seven-month-old child – U.S. national – Married parents – Father a U.S. citizen – Mother a Brazilian citizen – Shared rights of custody – Child lived in the United States from birth until May 2021 – Return application submitted to the Central Authority in the United States in September 2021 – Appeal allowed, return ordered – Key issues: habitual residence, rights of custody, settlement of the child, grave risk exception – The child’s habitual residence was in the United States – Custody matters must be resolved by the courts of the State of the child’s habitual residence – The father filed the return application within one year of the wrongful retention – The Court held that the allegations of domestic violence were not substantiated, and that neither the child’s separation from the taking parent nor the immigration obstacles faced by the mother were sufficient to establish the grave risk exception.