Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. 

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed. The child’s habitual residence was in the UK and so the retention was not wrongful.

Note that this decision was subsequently overturned on appeal in Re F (A Child) (Habitual Residence) [2025] EWCA Civ 911, INCADAT Case Number: 1619.

Non-Convention Issues | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Return refused

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Return refused

There had been a fundamental change of circumstances as the mother was no longer willing to return to Poland. The judge set aside the initial ruling and refused the application for return based on the Article 13(1)(b) exception.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Case remitted to lower court

The case was remanded to the district court to determine whether, in the exercise of its equitable discretion, a return to Brazil is still appropriate despite the child’s "settled" status.

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

Return ordered

The court held that the exceptions under Article 13 of the 1980 Convention did not apply in this case and ordered the return of the children to Israel. 

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Wrongful retention of a child approximately 12 years old at the time of judgment – national of Argentina and Uruguay – separated parents – father of Argentine nationality – mother of Uruguayan nationality – child born in Argentina and lived there until around age 4, then moved to Uruguay with his mother – application for international return initiated on August 19, 2020, before the Uruguayan Central Authority – appeal dismissed, return denied – key issues: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, child’s objection to return; procedural matters – returning the child would have entailed a grave risk of further psychological harm – the child's opposition to returning to Uruguay, considering his age and maturity, was decisive in denying the return – the Court indicated that mediation could be reopened to address the child's re-establishment of ties with his mother.

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

Return refused

Three children, 8-year-old boy (D), 6-year-old boy (Y) and 3-year-old girl (B), wrongfully removed - Parents divorced - Father national of Sudan - Mother national of Sudan - D and Y born in Egypt - B born in the Netherlands - Children subject to supervision order in the Netherlands, primarily cared for by the mother with the father allowed contact - Family lived in the Netherlands from 2020 until 2023 - Mother made serious allegations of domestic abuse against the father, including rape, beatings of her and the children, and a desire for B to undergo FGM - Mother wrongfully removed the children from the Netherlands on 6 or 7 July 2023, travelling by small boat to the UK - Father filed application for return with the High Court of England and Wales on 13 June 2024 - Return refused - Main issues: Article 13(b) - Domestic abuse allegations so severe that the risk of return was grave - Undertakings offered by the father were inadequate to be sufficient protective measures - D and Y opposed return but this did not constitute an objection for Article 13 purposes.