Refine your search

Keyword:

Grounds:

Show more

Year:

Country:

Show more

Article(s):

Show more

Order:

Show more

Requesting State:

Show more

Requested State:

Show more

Court Level:

Instrument:

Search results (69)

  • 2010 | HC/E/CA 1124 | CANADA | First Instance |
    Ryan v. Ryan
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 4 5 12 13(1)(b) 16 19

    Ruling

    Retention wrongful and return ordered; Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

  • 2003 | HC/E/UKs 805 | UNITED KINGDOM - SCOTLAND | Appellate Court |
    W. v. W., 2004 S.C. 63 IH (1 Div)
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal allowed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b) 13(2)

    Ruling

    Appeal allowed and return ordered; the trial judge had erred in his interpretation of Article 13(2). Reassessing the nature of the objections of the eldest child the Inner House concluded that they were not of sufficient weight to activate the exception. The eldest child being returned the younger siblings would therefore be returned also.

  • 2015 | HC/E/NO 1400 | NORWAY | Appellate Court
    Case no. LB-2015-76479
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    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) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

    Order

    Appeal allowed, return ordered

    Article(s)

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

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully removed at age 7 – National of Poland –unmarried parents– Father national of Poland – Mother national of Poland – Disputed custody rights– Child lived in Poland until August 2014 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Poland in September 2014 – Return ordered – Main issues: Article 3 – Rights of custody –  the father had limited custody rights but these extended to the right to decide the child’s habitual residence and therefore the father had rights of custody within the meaning of the Convention; Article 13(1)(b) – Grave risk of harm - there were no grounds for concluding that return would be “clearly unfavourable to the child” or that he would most likely suffer harm if returned. Therefore the exception did not apply; Article 13 – Child’s objections - the fact that the child  said he wanted to live with his mother  was not a ground for concluding that the child was opposed to returning to Poland, therefore the exception did not apply.

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

  • 1993 | HC/E/AU 260 | AUSTRALIA | First Instance |
    Police Commissioner of South Australia v. H., 6 August 1993, transcript, Family Court of Australia (Adelaide) [1993] FamCA 142
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered with undertakings offered

    Article(s)

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

    Ruling

    Return ordered with undertakings offered; the child was habitually resident in England at the relevant date.

  • 2015 | HC/E/CA 1403 | CANADA - BRITISH COLUMBIA
    Solis v Tibbo Lenoski [2015] BCCA 508
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    No summary available
    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    Two children wrongfully retained at age 3 – Nationals of Canada and Mexico –divorced parents – Father national of Canada – Mother national of Mexico – Mother was primary carer and father had rights of access – Children lived in Mexico until 2014 – Return ordered and appeal dismissed – Main issue(s): Article 13(1)(b) – The argued risk of psychological harm to one of the children if returned to Mexico due to the lack of autism therapies was not sufficient to invoke the Article 13(1)(b) exception.

  • 2016 | HC/E/HR 1392 | CROATIA | First Instance
    Municipal Court of Rijeka, No. R1 Ob-336/16 of 27 July 2016
    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) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

    Order

    Return refused

    Article(s)

    7 12 13(1)(b) 13(2) 16 19

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully retained at age 5 – National of Croatia and Germany – Married parents– Father national of Croatia and Germany – Mother national of Croatia – Joint parental responsibility  according to the German Civil Code – Child lived in Germany until December 2015 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Croatia on 22 March 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Croatia on 30 May 2016 – Return refused – Main issues: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return, Objections of the Child to a Return, Procedural matters  – The Court refused the request for return of the child under Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

  • 2000 | HC/E/US 1145 | UNITED STATES - FEDERAL JURISDICTION | First Instance |
    Ostevoll v. Ostevoll, 2000 WL 1611123 (S.D. Ohio 2000)
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

    Order

    Return refused

    Article(s)

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

    Ruling

    Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(1)(a) and (b) and Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

  • 1999 | HC/E/ZW 340 | ZIMBABWE | First Instance |
    Secretary For Justice v. Parker 1999 (2) ZLR 400 (H)
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

    Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Procedural Matters

    Order

    Return ordered subject to undertakings

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b)

    Ruling

    Removal wrongful and return ordered subject to undertakings; the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been established.

  • 2013 | HC/E/FR 1219 | FRANCE | Superior Appellate Court |
    Cass Civ 1ère, 10 juillet 2013, No de RG 13-14562
    Languages
    Full text download FR
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

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

    Article(s)

    13(1)(a) 13(1)(b)

    Ruling

    Appeal dismissed; return order upheld. The Court of Appeal had duly provided grounds for its decision and was not required to conduct a more thorough investigation relating to a possible grave risk of danger.

  • 2011 | HC/E/FR 1172 | FRANCE | Appellate Court |
    CA Agen, 1 décembre 2011, No de RG 11/01437
    Languages
    Full text download FR
    Summary available in EN | FR
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

    Order

    Appeal allowed, return ordered

    Article(s)

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

    Ruling

    Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions raised was applicable.

  • 2017 | HC/E/DE 1409 | GERMANY | Appellate Court
    Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Nuremberg Higher Regional Court), 7 UF 660/17, 05 July 2017
    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(b)

    Ruling

    The mother’s complaint appeal was rejected and the father’s application for the return of the child was approved. It was not possible to establish any reason to suggest that the child’s wellbeing would be endangered in the event that she were returned.

  • 2010 | HC/E/DE 1414 | GERMANY
    Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court, 2 UF 172/09, 8 January 2010
    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal allowed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(b)

    Ruling

    The immediate complaint appeal was approved and the father’s application for a return was successful.

    The accusations made against the father, which led to a rejection of the return application in accordance with Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention by the court of first instance, were not held to have been proven.

    However, the court refrained from ordering the immediate surrender of the three children to the father, and has instead opted for a “graduated return order”. The “graduated return order”, granted the mother the opportunity to effect the return of the children herself. The Hague Child Abduction Convention does not contain any explicit rules on how exactly the courts are to order returns. Determining the operative provisions of the return order is a matter of domestic procedural law.

  • 2011 | HC/E/FR 1128 | FRANCE | Appellate Court |
    CA Bordeaux, 28 juin 2011, No de RG 11/01062
    Languages
    Full text download FR
    Summary available in EN | FR
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 12 13(1)(b)

    Ruling

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and no exception asserted was applicable.

  • 2016 | HC/E/RU 1381 | RUSSIAN FEDERATION | Appellate Court |
    Thompson v. Thompson
    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. 

  • 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 | ES
    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.

  • 2013 | HC/E/NO 1402
    Case no. LF-2013-168054
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b) 13(2) 20

    Synopsis

    2 children wrongfully removed at ages 11 and 13 – Nationals of Portugal –divorced parents  – Father national of Portugal – Mother national of Portugal – Custody rights disputed – Children lived in Portugal until January 2013  – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Portugal in April 2013 – Return ordered – Main issues: Article 13(1)(b) – Grave risk of harm – even though the children did not seem to have a good relationship with their father there was not found to be a serious risk of harm should they return to Portugal and the exception did not apply; Article 13 – Child’s objections - the children’s opinions primarily had to be regarded as a desire to live with their mother, rather than as resistance to returning to Portugal and so the exception did not apply; Article 20 – Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – the court held that it was consistent with human rights for the children to be returned and that the exception did not apply.

  • 1997 | HC/E/AU 283 | AUSTRALIA | First Instance |
    State Central Authority of Victoria v. Ardito, 29 October 1997, Family Court of Australia (Melbourne) [1997] FamCA 61
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

    Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

    Order

    Return refused

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b) 20

    Ruling

    Retention wrongful but return refused; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had been made out. The fact that the mother was denied entry into the United States constituted a grave risk that the child would be placed in an intolerable situation if sent back alone.

  • 2011 | HC/E/FR 1129 | FRANCE | Appellate Court |
    CA Rennes, 28 juin 2011, No de RG 11/02685
    Languages
    Full text download FR
    Summary available in EN | FR
    Grounds

    Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

    Order

    Appeal allowed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 16 19

    Ruling

    Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and no exception raised was applicable.