Case Law Search

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.

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

Non-Convention Issues

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered.

Rights of Access - Art. 21

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the court did not have jurisdiction to consider a request for access rights as a remedy to a wrongful retention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of the child – Separated parents – Custody rights were jointly exercised – The child lived in Spain until 11 August 2014 – The request for return was filed before the Central Authority in Spain in September 2014 – Return ordered – Main issues: habitual residence, removal and retention, settlement of the child, art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, procedural matters – The habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful removal was in Spain – There was wrongful retention in breach of the custody rights, which were exercised jointly pursuant to the agreement signed by the mother and father – The settlement of the child was not considered because the one-year period required by the Convention had not elapsed – The evidence did not contribute to determining whether there had been sexual abuse; on the contrary, a true demonstration of the risk was necessary to justify the application of article 13(1)(b) - The Central Authority of Spain was urged to take measures to protect the child and to do a follow-up on the case to provide the father with the necessary legal support.

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

Return refused

1 child wrongfully retained at age 10 - National of El Salvador and Canada - Married parents - Father national of El Salvador - Mother national of Canada - Father exercised rights of custody for about 10 years, mother obtained custody in May 2012 - Child lived in El Salvador until November 2011 - Application for return filed with the Provincial Court in July 2012 - Return refused under Article 13(2) - Main issues: Art 13(1) (b) grave risk exception to return, objection of the child to return - Abuse of one parent by another can only be a relevant consideration for the Art. 13(1)(b) exception if the child is “placed in the midst of an abusive relationship” - An assessment of whether a child was placed in an intolerable situation due to the administration of corporal punishment should account for the range of generally accepted disciplining practices in the relevant social context - The factors to be taken into consideration when assessing whether a child has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of her views include: level of cognitive functioning, capacity for logical and rational reasoning and nuanced evaluation of different circumstances - Decisions not to order return under Article 13(2) should account for the policy considerations underlying the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention 

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

2 children wrongfully removed at ages 4 and 2 – Unmarried parents – Father national of Canada – Mother national of Canada and Columbia – Shared custody (parenting arrangement) – Children lived with both parents at times in the United States of America and at times in Canada – Children last lived in the United States of America from August 2010 until their removal in April 2013 - Application for return filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia in April 2013  – Return ordered – Main issues: habitual residence, Art. 13(1) (b) grave risk exception – A settled intention of the parents, for the purposes of establishing habitual residence, requires a “sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled” – Mere speculation that one of the parents might be deported on grounds of immigration status and might choose to move to a State that would allegedly endanger the children is insufficient evidence to establish that the Art. 13(1) (b) grave risk exception applies