Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Issues Relating to Return |

Return ordered with undertakings offered

One child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 5 and a half – National of Ukraine and the United Kingdom – Father national of the United Kingdom and South Africa – Mother national of Hungary and Ukraine – Child lived in Ukraine in the mother’s custody with regular contact with the father – Following Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022 child and Mother move to England In April 2022 – Mother plans to return to Ukraine in Summer 2022 – Father obtains Prohibited Steps Order from English Court - Application for return issued on 29 July 2022 – Main issues: habitual residence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – risk of exposure to war – risk of loss of relationship with father due to alleged closure of court system and mothers hostility to father – A child’s retained roots in Ukraine support his habitual residence remains in the Ukraine – The risk faced by the child upon return to Ukraine failed to meet the threshold of ‘grave harm’ – the region was not subject to active hostility and life continued as normal – the court system was functioning – mother promoted contact – undertakings reduced any risk below grave risk threshold. – Return ordered

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) |

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 13 – National of Brazil – Divorced parents– Father national of Brazil – Mother national of Brazil – Joint right to determine the residence of the child. Father has custody. – Child lived in Brazil until 31 October 2014 – Application for return filed with the Courts of Switzerland on 28 April 2016 – Return refused – Main issue: Objections of the Child to a Return – Child was mature enough for its opinion to be taken into consideration which constituted a reason to refuse the return based on Article 13(2).

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return refused

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

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the removal was wrongful however it was determined that the child had become settled in her new environment in accordance with Article 12(2).

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; Article 13(1)(b) was not proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions were established to the standard required under the Convention.

Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed; case remitted to the Family Court of Australia for a determination to be made as to the children's objections.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the retention was wrongful, being in breach of the mother's rights of custody, but the child had valid objections to a return.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Procedural Matters

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Unanimous: breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) due to the deprivation of effective exercise of his family life with the child for seven years; award to the father of EUR 7,000 for intangible damage and EUR 6,000 (plus any tax due) of costs and expenses.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had been proved to the standards required.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

The European Court of Human Rights held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR on account of the Italian courts' order for the child to be returned to Italy; and unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8 on account of the mother's absence from the hearing of the Rome Youth Court. Damages were awarded to mother and child.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return refused

Return refused; the retention was wrongful, but the child objected to a return to the UK and the standard required under Article 13(2) had been established.

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 | Undertakings

Return ordered with undertakings offered

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. 

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

1 child wrongfully retained at age 2 – Married parents – Father national of Poland – Mother national of Poland – Parental responsibility was exercised jointly by both parents – Child lived in the United Kingdom  – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of the United Kingdom on 21 September 2012 – Return refused before application to ECtHR on 12 April 2014 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 9,000 awarded in damages – The reasoning of the domestic courts regarding the Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Child Abduction Hague Convention exception in light of Article 8 ECHR was misguided; none of the arguments objectively ruled out the possibility of the mother's return with the child

Procedural Matters |

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child wrongfully removed at age 6 – National of Peru – Father national of Peru – Mother national of Peru – Temporary award of joint custody by Peruvian Court – Child lived in Peru until October 2019 – Application for return filed with the courts of Ontario in March 2020 – Return refused in first instance – Appeal dismissed – Main issue: Procedural matters – Conduct of hearing led to undue delay and contravened obligation for prompt resolution under the Convention. 

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

The ECrtHR held unanimously that Portugal had breached Article 8 of the ECHR but did not award damages to the mother because she had not made her application for just satisfaction within the time allowed to her.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful removal of 5-year-old child - American – unmarried parents, they split up -  the girl lived in California with her mother until she was removed by her father to Mexico – the return request was filed before the Central Authority in the United States of America – appeal allowed, return ordered – main issues: settlement of the child; procedural matters; interpretation of the Convention – the settlement of the child exception was not granted since the mother had filed for return within a year from the wrongful conduct – the Supreme Court held that Mexico lacks a special proceeding for child abduction cases – the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention safeguards the best interests of the child and is compatible with the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States and the different international treaties signed and ratified by Mexico.