Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)|Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)|Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)
Appeal dismissed, return refused
1 child removed to Japan ― National of Algeria and Japan ― Married parents ― Father an Algerian national, Mother a Japanese national ― Parents married in France in 1998 ― Child born in 2004 and lived in France until 2015 ― Mother removed and has retained the child in Japan ― Petition for return of the child filed with the Osaka Family Court ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal to the Osaka High Court dismissed ― Main issues: Father’s Consent or Acquiescence ― Grave Risk for the Child ― Child’s objection
1 child (nationality unknown) removed from Turkey to Japan ― Father a Turkish national - Mother a Japanese national ― Parents married in Turkey in 2012 ― The child was born in the same year ― Father allegedly sexually abused the child and exercised violence against the mother ― Mother allegedly incurred injury including a bone fracture due to the father’s violence ― Mother removed the child to Japan in 2014 ― Mother obtained a domestic violence restraining order by the Family Court in Turkey ― Father petitioned to the Tokyo Family Court for return of the child ― Return ordered ― The Tokyo High Court overruled and dismissed the petition for return of the child in 2015 ― Main issues: Article 13(1)(b) Grave Risk for the child
4 children removed at ages 13, 6, 5 & 2 – Unmarried parents – Court found that both parents had custody rights – The children lived in United States (North Dakota) until September 29, 2016 – Application for return filed with courts of Canada (Saskatchewan) in May 2017 – Return of 3 children ordered in June 2017 – Main issues: Article 3 (custody) – In the absence of proved foreign law, the Court applied Saskatchewan law and found that the father had custody rights with respect to his 3 biological children at the time of the removal – Undertakings – Father provided undertaking not to enforce US chasing order before a certain date to avoid children being forcibly removed from their mother by the police.
Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)|Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
Appeal dismissed, return ordered
4 children wrongfully removed to Japan ― Parents married in 2001 and living in the United States ― Father and mother nationals of Japan ― 5 children ― The parents separated and had been living apart since 2011 ― The mother obtained a restraining order against the father for the third time in 2012, along with a provisional custody order over the 5 children ― The father removed 4 of their 5 children via Canada to Japan in 2014 ― The parents obtained a divorce decree in the United States in 2014, which declared the mother as the sole custodian ― The mother filed an application for return with the courts of Japan in 2014 ― The Tokyo Family Court ordered return ― The father filed an appeal ― Main issues: No objections of the children ― No grave risk in ordering return of the child.
Habitual Residence - Art. 3|Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)|Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)
Appeal dismissed, application dismissed
4 children allegedly retained - aged 10, 13, 14 and 16 at the time of the decision – Nationals of Canada and Germany – Father national of Germany – Mother national of Canada – Both parents had rights of custody – Children lived in Germany until August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Ontario in August 2018 – Application dismissed – Main issue(s): Habitual Residence – Art 3 – The children were habitually resident in Canada and therefore there was no wrongful retention
1 child wrongfully retained at age 6 – Married parents – Father national of France, Italy and Lebanon – Mother national of Spain and Uruguay – Joint custody – Child lived in France until July 2018 – Application for return filed with the US District Court in Washington in June 2019 – Return ordered – Main issue(s): Article 3 - wrongful retention before the expected date of return.
Interpretation of the Convention|Human Rights - Art. 20
Return ordered subject to undertakings
Where a grant of asylum has been made by the Home Secretary it is impossible for the court later to order a return of the subject child under the 1980 Hague Convention. Equally, it is impossible for a return order to be made while an asylum claim is pending (including pending an appeal). Such an order would be in direct breach of the principle of non-refoulement.
The court ordered that the children be returned to Israel, but that this order should not take effect until 15 days after the promulgation by the First-tier Tribunal of its decision on the appeal by the mother and the children against the refusal of the grant of asylum by the Home Secretary. If the First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal then the return order would be stayed. If the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, then the return would be implemented, unless the mother wished to appeal on a point of law, in which case the court would appraise the strength or otherwise of the grounds of appeal.
Rights of Custody - Art. 3|Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)|Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)
Appeal dismissed, return ordered
The City Court (first instance) determined that the child was living in Poland before the removal and that a return to Poland would not harm the child. Therefore, the removal/retention was wrongful and that the child should go back to the mother in Poland.
The Eastern High Court (second instance) upheld the decision.
Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2|Habitual Residence - Art. 3|Article 15 Decision or Determination|Procedural Matters|Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)