Latest Decisions

  • Added on: 13 January 2020 |Appellate Court

    Abou-Haidar v Sanin Vazquez USCA Case #19-7110|UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |HC/E/US 1434

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    No summary available
    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3

    Synopsis

    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.

    View case
  • Added on: 8 January 2020 |First Instance

    FE v YE [2017] EWHC 2165 (Fam)|UNITED KINGDOM |HC/E/UK 1433

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Interpretation of the Convention | Human Rights - Art. 20

    Order

    Return ordered subject to undertakings

    Article(s)

    11 20

    Ruling

    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. 

    View case
  • Added on: 7 January 2020 |Appellate Court

    U.2014.1295Ø – TFA.445/1OE / nr. B-3977-13|DENMARK |HC/E/DK 1432

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

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

    Ruling

    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.

    View case
  • Added on: 15 December 2019 |Appellate Court

    C.L. / Procureur général, agissant à la demande de l’Autorité centrale|BELGIUM |HC/E/BE 1431

    Languages
    Full text download FR
    Summary available in FR
    Grounds

    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)

    Order

    Appeal allowed, application dismissed

    Article(s)

    3 15

    View case
  • Added on: 13 December 2019 |Appellate Court

    2017 (Ra) No. 525 Appeal case against an order to return the child |JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1430

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 4 13(1)(a)

    Synopsis

    1 child (national of Japan and the United States) removed from the United States to Japan ― Father a United States national, mother a Japanese national ― Parents married in Japan in 2012 and lived together with the mother’s son from her previous marriage ― The family moved to the United States in 2014 ― Upon becoming pregnant, the mother went back to Japan with her son in 2015 ― Mother returned to the United States with the new-born child in 2016 ― Father petitioned for divorce and obtained a provisional ne exeat order ― Mother moved to a shelter with the child within the United States ― Father had frequent access to the child, but contact broke up after an argument between the parents ― Mother removed the child to Japan in 2016 ― Obtaining assistance of the Central Authority of Japan in 2016, Father petitioned to the Osaka Family Court for return of the child in 2017 ― Return ordered ― Appeal to the Osaka High Court dismissed and return ordered in 2017 ― Main issues: Habitual Residence of the child ― Actual exercise of rights of custody ― Grave Risk for the child.

    View case
  • Added on: 13 December 2019 |Appellate Court

    2016 (Ra) No. 445 Appeal case against dismissal of case seeking return of a child|JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1429

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    3 4 13(1)(a) 20 12(2)

    Synopsis

    1 child (UK national) removed from Singapore to Japan ― Parents married in 2010, living together mostly in Singapore and briefly in Japan ― Father Singaporean national, mother Indian national ― Divorce in 2014 ― Father provided with access right, Mother with right to primarily care for the child and freely relocate with the child to Japan ― Mother went to Japan with the child and returned to Singapore in 2014 ― Failed access, Father sought a modification of the relocation clause and the modality of access ― Mother definitively removed the child to Japan in 2015 ― Assistance of the Central Authority of Japan revoked in 2016 ― The father filed a petition for the child’s return to the Osaka Family Court in 2016 ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal dismissed and return refused by the Osaka High Court in 2016 ― Main issues: Habitual residence of the child ― Rights of custody of the father or the Singaporean court.

    View case
  • Added on: 13 December 2019 |Superior Appellate Court

    12/2014 |DENMARK |HC/E/DK 1428

    Languages
    Full text download DA
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3

    Order

    Appeal allowed, return refused

    Article(s)

    3 12

    Ruling

    The Supreme Court (third instance) determined that the children’s habitual residence had changed from the United States to Denmark during the period in which the father consented to them being in Denmark (December 2010 - February 2013). By the time that the father had opposed the children's continued residence in Denmark they were habitually resident there therefore not unlawfully retained. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the retention was not wrongful and that the children should not be returned to their father in the United States.

    View case
  • Added on: 5 November 2019 |Appellate Court

    2015 (Ra) No. 708 Appeal case against an order for the return of a child |JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1427

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Non-Convention Issues | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 4 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 12(2)

    Synopsis

    1 child removed at age 3 years  ― National of Canada and Japan ― Married parents ― Father and Mother married in Canada in 2009 and living there ― Joint custody at the time of wrongful retention ― Child lived in Canada until July 2013 ― Mother removed the child to Japan with Father’s consent ― A wrongful retention of the child after the entry into force of the Convention between Canada and Japan on 1 April 2014  ― Application for return filed with the courts of Japan in March 2015 ― Appeal dismissed and return ordered ― Main issues: Article 3 Habitual residence of the child ― The initial time of the wrongful retention ― Article 13(1)(a) Prior consent or subsequent approval by the father ― Abuse of rights by the father.

    View case
  • Added on: 4 November 2019 |Appellate Court

    X v Y|NETHERLANDS - KINGDOM IN EUROPE |HC/E/NL 1426

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3

    Order

    Appeal allowed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    Two children wrongfully removed at age 1 – nationals of the Netherlands – married parents – father national of the Netherlands – mother national of the Netherlands – joint custody – children lived in Spain until 15 September 2018 - application for return filed with the court of the Hague on 16 November 2018 - return ordered – main issue: habitual residence, at any given time, a child can only have one place of habitual residence

    View case
  • Added on: 4 November 2019 |First Instance

    The return of a wrongfully retained minor to the Republic of Cyprus (Case No. 2 / 104-13|GEORGIA |HC/E/GE 1425

    Languages
    Full text download KA
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    1 2 3 4 5 12 13(1)(a)

    Synopsis

    Child wrongfully retained at age 12 – Citizen of Georgia – Divorced parents – Father national of Georgia – Mother national of Greece – Parents had joint custody – Child lived in Cyprus from 2008 until August 2012 – Application for return was filed with the Central Authority on 18 December 2012 – Main issue: Article 3 – the child’s State of habitual residence was Cyprus and there was no evidence to support the use of one of the exceptions to return under the 1980 Convention.

    View case