Latest Decisions

  • Added on: 1 November 2023 |Appellate Court

    2018 (Ra) No. 2204 Appeal case against an order to return the child|JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1551

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 20 12(1)

    Synopsis

    One child (Russian national) born in 2014 resided in Russia ― Father and mother Russian nationals ― Parents married in 2014 in Russia ― Parents divorced in 2016 ― Mother took the child to Japan in October 2017 and settled there following her remarriage ― A ne exeat order of the Russian court was partly set aside by confirming the child’s temporary residence in Japan in January 2019 ― Central Authority of Japan assisted the Father with a return application in July 2018 ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to the Tokyo Family Court in October 2018 ― Return ordered ― Appeal dismissed by the Tokyo High Court in February 2019 ― Main issues: rights of custody and grave risk.

    View case
  • Added on: 16 August 2023 |Appellate Court

    A. W. and R. W. Family Appeal No 0010 of 2018|TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO |HC/E/TT 1545

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 4 11 12 13(1)(b) 19

    Synopsis

    Wrongful retention of a child when she was 4 years old - Trinidadian - Trinidadian mother and father - The child lived in the United States for 2 years and 4 months - Return ordered - Appeal dismissed -  Main issues: habitual residence, grave risk, immigration status – The young child’s habitual residence was found to be in the U.S. because that was the place of residence of the mother and because she had lived there for a considerable time - The removal had not been wrongful but retention was since it breached the mother’s right of custody.

    View case
  • Added on: 14 June 2023 |Appellate Court

    A. C. C. s/ Restitución Internacional|ECUADOR |HC/E/EC 1539

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN | ES
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    1 3 5 12 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    Wrongful retention of the child – Separate parents – Custody rights were jointly exercised – The child lived in Spain until the August 11, 2014 – The request for return was filed before the Central Authority of Spain in September 2014 – Return ordered – Main issues: Habitual residence, removal and retention, settlement of the child, art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, procedural matters – The habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful removal was in Spain – There was wrongful retention in breach of the right of custody which was exercised jointly according to the agreement signed by the mother and father – The settlement of the child was not evaluated because the one year period established by the Convention to that effect had not elapsed – The evidence did not contribute to determine whether there had been sexual abuse, on the contrary, a true demonstration of the risk was necessary to justify applying article 13(1)(b) - The Central Authority of Spain was urged to take measures to protect the child and to do a follow up of the case to provide the father with the necessary support. 

    View case
  • Added on: 19 April 2023 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision 5A_709/2016 of 30 November 2016|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1538

    Languages
    Full text download FR
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    3 11 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2)

    Synopsis

    1 child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 13 – National of Brazil – Divorced parents– Father national of Brazil – Mother national of Brazil – Joint right to determine the residence of the child. Father has custody. – Child lived in Brazil until 31 October 2014 – Application for return filed with the Courts of Switzerland on 28 April 2016 – Return refused – Main issue: Objections of the Child to a Return – Child was mature enough for its opinion to be taken into consideration which constituted a reason to refuse the return based on Article 13(2).

    View case
  • Added on: 19 April 2023 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court 5A_576/2018 of the 31st of July 2018|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1537

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 |

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 5 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 12(2) 12(1)

    Synopsis

    one child wrongfully retained between age 4 and 5– National of unknown –unmarried parents – Father national of unknown – Mother national of unknown – Shared parental responsibility – Child lived in Portugal until 10 March 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 23 April 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: Removal and Retention – The father could not prove that the mother had given her consent for the child to remain in Switzerland and the mother filed an appeal within the one year period set out in Article 12.

    View case
  • Added on: 19 April 2023 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision 5A_997/2018 of the 11th of January 2019|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1536

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Procedural Matters |

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    26

    Synopsis

    one child wrongfully removed at age 8 – National of Chile –unmarried parents – Father national of Chile – Mother national of Chile – Agreement that the “cuidado personal” is solely attributed to the mother, but in fact it is exercised by both – Child lived in Chile until 14 August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 19 September 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: costs – Appeal of the father regarding costs has been dismissed based on interpretation of Article 26.

    View case
  • Added on: 19 April 2023 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision 5A_827/2016 of 30 November 2016|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1535

    Languages
    Full text download FR
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Procedural Matters |

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    13(1)(a) 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully removed at age 3 – National of Poland - Married parents (ongoing divorce proceedings) – Mother national of Poland – Father national of Poland - Parents had joint custody. Divorce court gave mother the right to have the child during the abduction until the end of the divorce proceedings. Decision that was annulled after return was ordered. – Child lived in Poland (until 4 December 2015)  – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Switzerland on 6 June 2016 – Return ordered – Main issue: Grave Risk – The fact that the mother considers her own return to Poland to be intolerable, both financially and professionally, is not relevant to the examination of the exception to return.

    View case
  • Added on: 18 April 2023 |Appellate Court

    L v. R, 2022 ONCA 582|CANADA |HC/E/CA 1534

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Procedural Matters |

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    1 11 13(1)(b) 16

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully removed at age 6 – National of Peru – Father national of Peru – Mother national of Peru – Temporary award of joint custody by Peruvian Court – Child lived in Peru until October 2019 – Application for return filed with the courts of Ontario in March 2020 – Return refused in first instance – Appeal dismissed – Main issue: Procedural matters – Conduct of hearing led to undue delay and contravened obligation for prompt resolution under the Convention. 

    View case
  • Added on: 18 April 2023 |First Instance

    Q v R [2022] EWHC 2961 (Fam)|UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES |HC/E/UA 1533

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Issues Relating to Return |

    Order

    Return ordered with undertakings offered

    Article(s)

    3 7 11 12 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    One child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 5 and a half – National of Ukraine and the United Kingdom – Father national of the United Kingdom and South Africa – Mother national of Hungary and Ukraine – Child lived in Ukraine in the mother’s custody with regular contact with the father – Following Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022 child and Mother move to England In April 2022 – Mother plans to return to Ukraine in Summer 2022 – Father obtains Prohibited Steps Order from English Court - Application for return issued on 29 July 2022 – Main issues: habitual residence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – risk of exposure to war – risk of loss of relationship with father due to alleged closure of court system and mothers hostility to father – A child’s retained roots in Ukraine support his habitual residence remains in the Ukraine – The risk faced by the child upon return to Ukraine failed to meet the threshold of ‘grave harm’ – the region was not subject to active hostility and life continued as normal – the court system was functioning – mother promoted contact – undertakings reduced any risk below grave risk threshold. – Return ordered

    View case
  • Added on: 13 March 2023 |First Instance

    V. B. A. C c/ V. L., N. s/ exhorto Restitución Internacional de Menores de 16 años|URUGUAY |HC/E/UY 1532

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN | ES
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(b) 13(2)

    Synopsis

    Wrongful retention of an adolescent in Uruguay – Custody right exercised solely by the mother – The adolescent lived in Spain with his mother for 4 years – The return application was filed before the Spanish Central Authority – Return ordered – Main issues: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, objections of the child to a return – The father did not prove any situation in which there was a grave risk actually making return intolerable and exposing the adolescent gravely – The adolescent voiced a preference but there was no true objection in the sense of an unwavering repudiation towards return.

    View case