Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention of the child was wrongful as the child, according to the parents' agreement, was still habitually resident in England, and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return ordered

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

Return ordered

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

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in the United States of America on the relevant date, and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the children were now settled in their new environment. A discretion remained to order the return of children notwithstanding a finding of settlement, but the District Court's finding that the discretion should not be exercised was not to be disturbed.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal upheld and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but a return to the United Kingdom would expose the child to a grave risk of physical, and most importantly, psychological harm.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Unanimous: infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); award of damages on the basis of Article 41 of the ECHR.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; return ordered. The removal was wrongful and the mother had not established that an exception was applicable.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

By a majority of five to two, the European Court of Human Rights held that Latvia had violated Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to take account of various relevant factors in assessing the best interests of the child. The Court also awarded the mother compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; a grave risk of harm for the purposes of Article 13(1)(b) had not been established to the standard required by the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

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

Return ordered

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in England at the time of the removal.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the children were habitually resident in Israel at the date of the alleged wrongful retention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Best Interests of the Child

Return refused

Return refused based on the elder child's objections, the fact that the children were now settled in the USA and the grave risk of harm should they be returned to Mexico.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

2 children wrongfully 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 Superior Court of Justice (Family Court Branch) in June 2014 - Return ordered - Main issues: habitual residence, rights of custody, objections of the child to return - A parent cannot unilaterally change the habitual residence of a child during a time-limited period of consensual stay in another State agreed to by the other parent - Contemplation of an extension of such a period of consensual stay does not defeat its time-limited nature - Evidence of the child settling in his new environment is irrelevant if the application for return is brought within one year of the removal or retention - Where rights of custody have been transferred by one parent to another for the sole purpose of enrolling children in school in a given State, the parent who transferred those rights exercises them when the taking parent refuses to return the child, or would have exercised them but for the removal or retention - A child’s objection to return that is unsubstantial or merely expresses a preference for one place over another is insufficient grounds for refusing to order return under Art. 13(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention

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

Return refused

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.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal dismissed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Unlawful retention of a one-year-old child – Argentine national – Married parents – Father was an Argentine national – Mother was a Uruguayan national – Both parents held custodial rights – The child lived in Argentina until July 2015 – The restitution request was submitted to the Argentine Central Authority – Appeal granted, return ordered – Key issues: Article 3 (habitual residence), Articles 3 and 12 (removal and retention), Article 13(1)(b) (grave risk exception), Best interests of the child – The child's habitual residence was Argentina – The retention was deemed unlawful as the mother lacked the other parent’s consent – No grave risk was established, as Argentina had judicial mechanisms to protect the mother and child.