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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Two girls aged 10 and 12 – divorced parents – mother a US national, father a Bermudian national – habitual residence in the United States – Main issues: grave risk Article 13(1)(b) – opposition to return Article 13(2). The appeal is allowed. The return order is set aside and it is ordered that the girls remain in Bermuda with their father.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Case remitted to lower court

1 child wrongfully removed at 2 years old – Father national of Spain – Mother national of France – Both parents have rights of custody over the child – Child lived in Spain until 12 August 2020 – Application for return filed on 5 November 2020 – Return refused at first instance - Decision affirmed on appeal – Supreme Court overturned appeal decision and remitted to a lower court - Main issue: Art. 13(1)(b) Grave Risk – The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal did not provide a sufficient legal basis for its decision that a return to Spain would establish a grave risk for the child.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed to France – Child national of France – Separated parents – Mother is the sole holder of rights of custody under Serbian law – Child lived in Serbia from May 2016 until August 2016 – Father removes child from Serbia to France – Mother files application for return with the Central Authority of Serbia– Application for return filed by the French public prosecutor on 17 March 2017 – Return ordered by Court of Appeal – Supreme Court upheld Court of Appeal decision - Main issues: Articles 3 and 4 Habitual Residence & Rights of Custody –Child habitually resident in Serbia at time of removal and the mother had sole custody, leading to a return decision

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained at age 7 – Married parents – Both parents had custody over the child – Child lived in Japan until 3 April 2018 – Application for return filed with District Family Court on 27 March 2019 – Return ordered – Main issue: Art. 13(1)(b) – Grave risk: return could cause separation between mother and child (mother raising  immigration issues upon return to Japan and a possible deprivation of her parental rights) - The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal decision to return.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child wrongfully removed – National of France – Parents nationals of France – Both parents hold custody rights over the child – Child lived in Luxembourg until summer 2018 – Application for return filed with the District Court of Grenoble, France on August, 15, 2018 – Return ordered - Appeal filed before the Court of Appeal of Grenoble – Return order overturned on appeal – Supreme Court upheld appeal decision - Main issue: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – The court is not bound by any findings of fact, assessment of evidence or decisions made by the court in the State of habitual residence, and can refuse to order the return of the child on the basis of Article 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Convention.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Best Interests of the Child | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal dismissed, return refused

​​3 children wrongfully retained in France – Children born in 2012, 2013 and 2014 – Nationals of Serbia – Married parents – Both parents had custody rights – Children lived in Serbia until June 2015 – First instance decision ordering the return of the children overturned on appeal – Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) upheld Court of Appeal decision – Appeal dismissed –  Main issue: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – Father’s conduct and psychological state of the children established grave risk, justifying a non-return order.​ 

Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

​​2 children allegedly wrongfully removed at age 11 and 5 – Separated parents – Both parents had parental responsibility - The mother had primary custody of the children and the father had visiting rights – Children lived in Belgium until March 2010 – Application for return filed by the public prosecutor with the District Family Court of Lille – Application dismissed at all levels – Main issues: Art 4 Age of the child (one of the children reached age of 16) & Procedural Matters (public prosecutor revoked the return application)​