Case Law Search

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Legal challenge dismissed and return order confirmed; the retention was wrongful and the conditions necessary for the application of Article 13(1)(b) and Article 20 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had not been met.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; there had been no wrongful removal as the Convention had not entered into effect between the United Kingdom and Ontario at the relevant date.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal had rightly taken into account the High Court judgment to refuse a return order.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, the exception of grave risk was inapplicable; case returned to the Superior Court of the canton of Lucerne for a ruling on the terms of the return to Burkina Faso.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; a grave risk of harm had not been established to the standard required under the Convention. The trial court had moreover erred in the exercise of its discretion.

Issues Relating to Return

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Issues Relating to Return

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered to a Member State other than the State of the child's habitual residence; none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Interpretation of the Convention | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Guidance on the application of the Convention issued

2 children retained at ages 11 and 8 – Nationals of Canada – Married parents – Father national of Canada – Mother national of Canada – Father transferred physical custody in a notarised letter to the mother for the period April 2013 to August 2014, to allow the children to enroll in a Canadian school – Children lived in Germany until April 2013 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Germany on 11 April 2014 – Return decision of the Court of Appeal of Ontario of 13 September 2016 was appealed to the Supreme Court, but the children were returned to Germany before the Court rendered its judgment; despite the appeal being moot, the Court considered the issues raised to be important and in need of clarification – Main issues: interpretation of the Convention, habitual residence, objections of the child to a return, procedural matters – To ensure uniformity of State practice, courts should generally adopt the interpretation of the Convention that has gained the most support in other foreign domestic courts – The “hybrid approach” to determining habitual residence (which considers all relevant factual links and circumstances in their entirety, instead of focusing either on parental intention or the child’s acclimatisation) should be followed – Courts should adopt a non-technical and straightforward approach to considering the child’s objections to return – It is up to the judicial authorities to ensure that the State lives up to its obligations to act expeditiously under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention – Convention proceedings should be judge-led, not party-driven, and judges should not hesitate to use their authority to expedite proceedings

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return refused

The Supreme Court (third instance) determined that the children’s habitual residence had changed from the United States to Denmark during the period in which the father consented to them being in Denmark (December 2010 - February 2013). By the time that the father had opposed the children's continued residence in Denmark they were habitually resident there therefore not unlawfully retained. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the retention was not wrongful and that the children should not be returned to their father in the United States.

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

Appeal dismissed and return of older sibling ordered; his removal had been wrongful and the Article 13(1)(b) exception had not been established.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

1 child wrongfully removed at age 6 – Unmarried parents – The mother had day-to-day care of the child and the father had supervised contact – Child lived in New Zealand until May 2016 – Application for return heard at first instance in December 2016 – First appeal: application dismissed – Second appeal: return ordered – Main issues: rights of custody, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, undertakings / conditions for return – The finding that there is no ”grave risk” within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) “while at the same time foreshadowing a preparedness to impose conditions on the order for return” can be consistent - fulfilment of conditions prior to the child’s return should be feasible and cannot place the taking parent in a better situation than she was before the removal

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Return refused

Return refused; the father had acquiesced in terms of Article 13(1)(a).

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Rights of Access - Art. 21 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; on the basis that the father was prepared to contemplate the children remaining in New Zealand if he could have satisfactory access in the United States.

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

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to show that the child would face a grave risk of physical harm had not been met.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) had not been met to show that the father had consented.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2

Return order struck out given it had not been enforced for three and a half years.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Reclaiming motion (appeal) allowed; case remitted to the Outer House of the Court of Session to determine the issues of wrongful retention and habitual residence.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of an intolerable situation had not been met.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of physical harm or an intolerable situation had not been met.