Refine your search

Keyword:

Grounds:

Show more

Year:

Country:

Article(s):

Show more

Order:

Requesting State:

Requested State:

Court Level:

Instrument:

Search results (3)

  • 2018 | HC/E/UA 1397 | Superior Appellate Court
    Hague return case from Ukraine to the United Kingdom No 2-4237/12
    Languages
    Full text download
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    2 3 5 8 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 16 19 20 12(1)

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully retained at age 6 months - National of United Kingdom and Ukraine - Married parents- Father national of the United Kingdom - Mother national of Ukraine – Applicant father had joint custody with respondent mother under British legislation – Child lived in the United Kingdom until 11 April 2012 -Application for return filed with the courts of Ukraine on 19 December 2012 - Return ordered on 29 August 2018 - Main issues: Articles 5 and 12 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention (a parent cannot independently decide to change the child’s place of habitual residence; the place of habitual residence is of major importance to restoring of the status quo for the child; first instance court and appeal court incorrectly interpreted exceptions for non-return of a child as a settlement in new environment, acquiescence in the retention and grave risk to return).

  • 2017 | HC/E/JP 1390 | JAPAN | Appellate Court
    2017 (Ra) No. 742 Appeal case against an order of the return of a child
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

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

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully retained in Japan ― National of Singapore and Japan ― Married parents ― Father national of Singapore – Mother national of Japan ― Child lived in Singapore until 2016 ― Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Singapore in 2016 ― Petition for return filed with the courts of Japan in 2017 ― Return ordered ― Main issues: acquiescence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – There is no grave risk in ordering the return of the child in cases involving domestic violence between the parents where a protection order is in place in the requesting State and where there is no evidence that any violence has been committed against the child ― It cannot be said that a parent has not actually exercised rights of custody at the time of removal if he did not know the whereabouts of the child at that time  ― A parent has not approved of or acquiesced in the retention if he filed a return application with the Central Authority of the requesting State about one month after coming to know of the removal, and with the courts of the requested State almost one year after the removal, respectively.

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