Recherche de décisions

The mother and father began their relationship in the United States in 2009. The father is from Switzerland and the mother from the USA. They moved first to the Netherlands and then to Norway, in 2012, where their first child was born. The father moved into a separate apartment in 2015 but the parents continued their relationship and they had a second child in 2018. 

Though the father did not live in the family home, he was very involved in the children’s day to day lives.

Each party accused the other of domestic violence. The Norwegian authorities were involved on three instances but never formally determined that the father had been violent towards the mother or children. 

In February 2024, the parents reached a temporary agreement for three supervised visits between the father and the children. A therapist assigned to supervise the visits observed positive interactions.

In May 2024 the mother took the children from Norway to the United States to attend her father’s funeral. They never returned to Norway. 

The father made an application under the 1980 Hague Convention for the return of the children. 

Return refused. Separating the siblings would present a grave risk of psychological harm to both children, within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b).

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

The father conceded that the mother had sole parental responsibility for the younger child as, when the child was born, the relevant Norwegian legislation (the Children Act) granted mothers sole parental responsibility if the parents were not married or not living together.

Section 40 of the Children Act stated clearly that “If one of the parents has sole parental responsibility, the other parent may not object to the child relocating abroad.”

Therefore, the father failed to establish that the mother taking the younger child to the USA amounted to a wrongful removal, within the meaning of the 1980 Hague Convention.

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

Regarding the older child, the father had joint parental responsibility and had established a prima facie case for return. However, as the father did not have joint parental responsibility for the second child, the court concluded that separating the siblings would present a grave risk of psychological harm to both children, within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b).