Case Law Search

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and no exception raised was applicable.

Non-Convention Issues

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

One child wrongfully removed at age 1 – National of Ukraine – Married parents – Father national of Ukraine – Mother national of Ukraine – Mother and father have joint custody –Child lived in Ukraine until 02.03.2022 –Application for return filed with the Central Authority/courts (choose!) of [State] on [date] –Return refused – Main issue(s): Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return  – [Summary of the outcome of the main contentious issue(s) The return of a child to a war zone where it could be exposed to a real threat entails a serious risk of physical or psychological harm being caused to the child.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the father was to have sole possession of the children's travel documentation.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered.

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

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

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

1 child allegedly wrongfully removed at age 13 – National of Canada – Divorced parents – Parents have joint custody and mother has primary care – Child lived in Arizona, USA until August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Alberta, Canada on May 18, 2018 – Application dismissed – Main issue: Art 13(1)(b) – It would be an intolerable situation to return the child to Arizona as neither parent resides there.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Case remitted to lower court

The case was remanded to the district court to determine whether, in the exercise of its equitable discretion, a return to Brazil is still appropriate despite the child’s "settled" status.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed; return refused.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Removal wrongful and return ordered; Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(1)(a) and Article 13(1)(b) had both been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully retained in France – Separated parents – Mother given primary custody and the father had visiting rights – Child lived in Ukraine until October 2014 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Ukraine by the father on 18 November 2014 – Case referred by the public prosecutor of Nanterre to the District Court of Nanterre on 24 May 2016 – Appeal granted by the Supreme Court, return refused – Main issue: Art 12(2) – The child has settled in her new environment, within the meaning of Article 12(2) of the 1980 Convention, leading to the dismissal of the return request

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained in France at 4 months old – Married parents – Both parents had rights of custody over the child – Child lived in Israel until 5 August 2012 – Application for return filed on 4 November 2012 – Return ordered – Main issue: Arts 3 and 12 Retention and Art. 13(1)(b) Grave risk – The child was habitually resident of Israel before being retained in France and no grave risk of harm under Art. 13(1)(b) has been established, leading the court to confirm the order of return of the child.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Human Rights - Art. 20

Unanimous: appeal inadmissible; the issues relating to the consistency of the 1980 Convention with the Constitution had been resolved in an earlier case, and admissibility of the appeal was not necessary for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Interpretation of the Convention

In its preliminary ruling the Court noted, inter alia, that where the removal of a child has taken place in accordance with a judgment which was provisionally enforceable and which was thereafter overturned, the child's habitual residence must be determined by undertaking an assessment of all the circumstances of fact. Whilst it was possible the child's habitual residence may have changed, account must be taken of the fact that the judgment authorising the removal could be provisionally enforced and that an appeal had been brought.

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.