Latest Decisions

  • Added on: 17 April 2018 |Superior Appellate Court

    2017 (Kyo) No. 9 Case on Appeal with Permission against Modification of Final Order|JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1387

    Languages
    Full text download JA | EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b) 13(2)

    Synopsis

    This is the first and so far the only Supreme Court decision which modified a final and binding return order due to a change in circumstances under the Hague Convention Implementation Act. It is seen as a highly exceptional case.

    4 children (2 sets of twins) wrongfully retained in Japan ― Children lived in the United States until July 2014, when the elder twins were 11 years and 7 months old and the younger twins 6 years and 5 months old ― Married parents ― Father national of the United States ― Mother national of Japan ― Order for the return of all children became final and binding in January 2016 ― The Supreme Court upheld the Osaka High Court decision modifying the return order due to change in circumstances and dismissed the petition for the return of the children ― Main issues: Grounds for refusal of a return order ― The elder twins’ objection to being returned ― A grave risk of placing the younger twins in an intolerable situation by separating them from their siblings 

    View case
  • Added on: 27 March 2018 |Appellate Court

    Pliego v. Hayes, 843 F.3d 226 (6th Cir. 2016) |UNITED STATES - FEDERAL JURISDICTION |HC/E/US 1386

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully removed at 4 years  – National of Spain and the United States of America – Married parents – Father national of Spain – Mother national of United States of America – The mother and father had joint custody – Child lived in Turkey until April 2014 (first removal) and April 2015 (second removal)  – Application for return filed with the courts of the United States of America (federal jurisdiction) – Return ordered – Main issue(s): Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – an “intolerable situation” can include circumstances where there is conclusive evidence that courts of the State of habitual residence are practically or legally unable to adjudicate custody

    View case
  • Added on: 14 March 2018 |First Instance

    Pliego v. Hayes, 86 F.Supp.3d 678 (W.D. Ky. 2015)|UNITED STATES - FEDERAL JURISDICTION |HC/E/US 1385

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully removed at 3 years – National of Spain and United States of America – Married parents – Father national of Spain – Mother national of United States of America – The mother and father had joint custody – Child lived in Turkey until 6 April 2014  – Application for return filed with the courts of the United States of America (federal jurisdiction) – Return ordered – Main issue(s): habitual residence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – The retention was deemed unlawful and the “grave risk” exception to ordering return had not been established

    View case
  • Added on: 2 March 2018 |Appellate Court

    [father] tegen [mother] Hof Den Haag 14 februari 2018, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:296|NETHERLANDS - KINGDOM IN EUROPE |HC/E/NL 1384

    Languages
    Full text download NL
    No summary available
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

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

    Synopsis

    4 children wrongfully removed - Nationals of the Netherlands - Married parents - Father and mother nationals of the Netherlands - Order of 22 November 2017 granted a certified authority ("gecertificeerde autoriteit") temporary custody pending the execution of a return order (if any); parents initially had joint custudy  - Children lived in an unidentified State until 14 June 2017 - Return refused - Main issues: objections of the child to return, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return - In cases in which the children's objections go farther than expressing a mere preference not to return, and in which the children's testimony is consistent and there is evidence of severe insecurity, instability and uncertainty in the environment to which they are to be returned, return may be refused under Art. 13(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, provided the children have attained the appropriate age and degree of maturity - Ordering the return of only some of the children will result in separation, which could place the returned children in an intolerable situation - Return may be refused under Art. 13(1)(b) of the Convention for all children where there is a history of repeated domestic violence, intervention of the courts and social workers, and where the children have suffered from frequent changes of residence and school; and where the care provided in the requested State is restoringing continuity to their lives and enabling them to process their trauma, such that it is in their best interests to remain there

    View case
  • Added on: 14 November 2017 |First Instance

    Sabogal v. Velarde, 106 F.Supp.3d 689 (2015)|UNITED STATES - FEDERAL JURISDICTION |HC/E/USf 1383

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered subject to undertakings

    Article(s)

    1 3 5 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 20

    Synopsis

    2 children wrongfully removed (born in 2005 and 2007) - Separated parents - The Purvian courts had effectively granted temporary custody to the mother on 21 November 2013, and then to the father on 1 October 2014 (following the removal)  - Children lived in Peru until 20 February 2014 - Application for return filed with the District Court on 17 February 2015 - Return ordered subject to undertakings - Main issues: rights of custody, Art.13(1)(b) "grave risk" exception to return, undertakings - A very severe degree of psychological abuse is sufficient to conclude that the Art. 13(1)(b) "grave risk" exception to return under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention applies, even in cases in which there is very little or no evidence of physical abuse

    View case
  • Added on: 10 November 2017 |Superior Appellate Court

    Sentencia nº 16/2016 (Sala Segunda); Número de Registro 2937-2015. Recurso de amparo.|SPAIN |HC/E/ES 1382

    Languages
    Full text download ES
    No summary available
    Grounds

    Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

    Order

    Case remitted to lower court

    Article(s)

    1 11 12

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully removed at age 4 - National of Switzerland - Unmarried parents - Father national of Switzerland - Mother national of Spain - The lower courts had determined that the removal was in breach of the father’s custody rights - Child lived in Switzerland until August 2013 - Application for return filed with the courts of Spain on 7 November 2013 - Return refused at first instance, then return ordered on appeal - Main issue: settlement of the child - “Amparo” claim successful: the Constitutional Court found that the mother’s constitutional right to effective legal protection had been violated (no ruling on return / non-return) - A proper analysis of whether the child has become settled in its new environment should be conducted where a year has passed since the abduction occurred, in order for a decision to be rendered that is in the best interests of the child - It is immaterial that the delay is not attributable to the conduct of the parents; regardless of the cause, it may not affect the best interests of the child

    View case
  • Added on: 8 November 2017 |Appellate Court

    Thompson v. Thompson|RUSSIAN FEDERATION |HC/E/RU 1381

    Languages
    Full text download RU
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b) 12(1)

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully removed at age 2 - National of the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation - Married parents - Father national of United Kingdom - Mother national of Russia - Both parents had rights of custody - Child lived in Spain with both parents until April 2016 - Application for return filed with the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 18 August 2016 - Return refused - Main issue: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return - A child aged 3 has a physchological and physiological need for her mother and since the mother had decided to stay in Russia, return to Spain would expose the child to a grave risk of harm

    This case forms the subject of an application to the European Court of Human Rights (Thompson v. Russia, Application no. 36048/17), lodged on 15 May 2017 and communicated on 23 October 2017. 

    View case
  • Added on: 10 October 2017 |European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR)

    Cavani v. Hungary (Application No 5493/13) |HC/E/HU 1379

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    No summary available
    Grounds

    European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

    Order

    ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

    Article(s)

    11

    Synopsis

    Two children wrongfully removed at approximately ages 1 and 2 years old – Nationals of Hungary and Italy – Married parents – Father national of Italy – Mother national of Hungary – Shared parental authority – Children lived in Italy until June 2004 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Italy on 3 March 2005 – Return ordered before application to ECtHR on 16 January 2013 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 3,000 awarded in damages to father and EUR 3,000 awarded in damages to children – The failure to enforce the return order without any explanation or justification, which prevented the father and children from being reunited or seeing each other occassionaly for over seven years, amounted to a violation of the father's and children's right to family life

    View case
  • Added on: 9 October 2017 |Appellate Court

    A.L v. J.M., 2015 QCCA 638 |CANADA - QUEBEC |HC/E/CA 1377

    Languages
    Full text download FR
    No summary available
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered subject to undertakings

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    2 children wrongfully removed at ages 7 and 8 - Nationals of Canada - Married parents - Joint custody - Children lived in Spain until September 2014 - Return ordered - Main issues: Art 13(1) (b) grave risk exception to return, procedural matters - A grave risk of placing the child in an intolerable situation upon return can be mitigated or eliminated by ordering return subject to appropriate undertakings

    View case
  • Added on: 9 October 2017 |Superior Appellate Court

    Cass Civ 1ère, 14/06/2017, Y c. X, N. 17-10980|FRANCE |HC/E/FR 1375

    Languages
    Full text download FR
    No summary available
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    1 2 3

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully retained at age 2 – Unmarried parents – Father national of Italy – Mother national of France – Italian court granted joint custody rights and decided that the child should live with the mother – Child lived in Italy until December 2015 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Italy in September 2016 - Application dismissed – Main issues: Rights of custody, habitual residence – It is up to the taking parent to prove that the left-behind parent was not exercising his rights of custody at the time of the removal or retention – It is for the authorities of the requesting State to determine the arrangements for the reception of the child upon her return

    View case