Case Law Search

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return refused

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, removal wrongful and return ordered; the standard required under Article 12(2) had not been met to show the children were settled in their new environment. The standard required had been met under Article 13(1)(a) to show that the father had acquiesced in the removal, however, the court exercised its discretion to make a return order.

Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed; the District Court had abused its discretion in denying the motion to set aside.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed. Retention wrongful but return refused; the standard required under Article 12(2) had been reached to show the children were settled in their new environment.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return ordered

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Return refused

Return refused; the retention of the child was not wrongful since at the moment of retention the child had acquired a habitual residence in Massachusetts.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal was in breach of actually exercised rights of custody and was therefore wrongful, none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Unanimous: no breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). There was no separate issue concerning the claims based on Articles 6 and 13. The authorities' lack of diligence in preventing the abduction was admittedly manifest but had been indemnified by the Spanish authorities. The authorities had not been lacking in diligence regarding the child's return, despite the absence of results in this respect.

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)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the trial judge had not erred in the exercise of his discretion in making a return order notwithstanding having found the children to be settled in their new environment and that they objected to a return.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return ordered

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)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, being in breach of the father's rights of custody, but the older siblings had valid objections to a return and the children would face a grave risk of harm if separated.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused: the removal was wrongful, but Article 12(2) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal inadmissible for being manifestly unfounded. None of Arts. 3, 12, 13(1)(b) and 14 is inconsistent with the German Constitution, and neither their interpretation nor their application by the Court of Appeal was inconsistent with the Constitution.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the retention was wrongful but the child was now settled in her new environment.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of a girl when she was 4 years old – Guatemalan and American – separated parents – the girl was born in the United States, as proved by her birth certificate – the Central Authority of Guatemala filed the return request before court in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala – appeal dismissed, return ordered – main issues: habitual residence; removal and retention; settlement of the child; interpretation of the Convention – the habitual residence of the child before the wrongful retention was in the United States, as evidenced by her birth certificate and medical records – the wrongful retention took place when the father did not return her to the United States on the agreed date after her holiday with the grandparents, to which the mother had consented – the immediate return ought to be ordered since the child had spent less than a year in the requested State – the HCCH Convention on Child Abduction does not require the conduction of socioeconomical or psychological studies on the parents in order to make a decision on return

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Application inadmissible; all elements of the complaints were found to be manifestly ill-founded.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; the child was settled in his new environment and the Court exercised its discretion not to order his return.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed aged less than one year old - Unmarried parents - Joint custody - Child lived in Greece until May 2010 - Application for return filed in April 2011 - Return ordered - Main issues: Settlement of the child, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return, procedural matters - Art. 12(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention only applies where return proceedings have been commenced after a period of more than one year has elapsed since the date of the wrongful removal

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 |

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

one child wrongfully retained between age 4 and 5– National of unknown –unmarried parents – Father national of unknown – Mother national of unknown – Shared parental responsibility – Child lived in Portugal until 10 March 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 23 April 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: Removal and Retention – The father could not prove that the mother had given her consent for the child to remain in Switzerland and the mother filed an appeal within the one year period set out in Article 12.