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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed, return refused. The District Court had erred in finding that Article 13(1)(b) did not apply. 

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Non-Convention Issues

Return ordered

Return ordered with undertakings and protective measures.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered, subject to undertakings.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed, return refused. The first instance judge did not properly apply the approach as set out in Re E. The mother established that Article 13(1)(b) applies and there is no justification for exercising the court’s discretion by making a return order.

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

Return refused

Return refused. The children were at grave risk of harm if they returned to Spain and were settled in the USA. 

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.

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

Return refused

Return refused due to acquiescence of the father.

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.

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

Return ordered

Father was a US national and mother was a Japanese national ― Parents married in 2014 in Japan ― Their sons were born in 2016 and 2017 in Japan respectively ― The entire family moved to California, the United States in 2018 ― In 2022 mother started to seek divorce but father refused ― Mother took the children to Japan in December 2022 ― Mother declared consensual divorce in February 2023 in Japan following their alleged divorce agreement entered in November 2022 ― Father denied to have signed a divorce form or divorce agreement ― Upon father’s petition, the Osaka Family Court ordered the return of the children to the United States ― Appeal dismissed and return ordered ― Main issue: Consent and Grave Risk.

Issues Relating to Return

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

The parents and the children resided in France ― After the parents’ separation, the father removed two children from France to Japan ― Osaka Family Court ordered the return of the children to France on 11 September 2020, which became final and conclusive on 9 December 2020 ― Divorce decree rendered in France on 23 November 2020 ordered joint custody of the parents and the children to reside with the father in Japan, while only granting visitation right to the mother ― The Osaka Family Court granted the mother’s claim for indirect compulsory execution on 1 February 2021 ― The Osaka High Court reversed the decision and dismissed the mother’s claim to honor the French custody decision on 14 April 2021 ― The Supreme Court upheld the decision on the grounds that the mother’s claim for indirect compulsory execution became unlawful after the children returned to France as a result of compulsory execution by substitute ― Two justices concurred and opined that the lower court decision may conflict with Art. 17 of the 1980 Convention  Main issue: Admissibility of indirect compulsory execution that runs counter to a foreign custody order.