Case Law Search

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the father's delay in applying under the Convention was found to have been reasonable and was therefore not sufficient to show that he had acquiesced in the retention of the children.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return ordered

Return ordered; the father had not acquiesced in the retention of the children.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Return ordered with an undertaking required; neither Article 13(1)(a) nor Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The Supreme Court rejected the mother’s appeal.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return ordered subject to undertakings

The court ordered the return of the child to the USA.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful removal of 5-year-old child - American – unmarried parents, they split up -  the girl lived in California with her mother until she was removed by her father to Mexico – the return request was filed before the Central Authority in the United States of America – appeal allowed, return ordered – main issues: settlement of the child; procedural matters; interpretation of the Convention – the settlement of the child exception was not granted since the mother had filed for return within a year from the wrongful conduct – the Supreme Court held that Mexico lacks a special proceeding for child abduction cases – the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention safeguards the best interests of the child and is compatible with the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States and the different international treaties signed and ratified by Mexico.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; regard had to be paid to the terms of the provisional order of the Czech District Court permitting the children to live with the mother in Sweden.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of two girls when they were 8 and 11 years old – Uruguayan & Swedish – Unmarried parents – Uruguayan father – Uruguayan mother – Joint custody – The girls lived in the Kingdom of Norway until January 2019 – Return proceedings were commenced before Uruguayan courts on 27 May 2019 – Return ordered – Main issues: removal and retention, consent, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, objections of the child to a return, procedural matters, best interests of the child – Retention was wrongful because it violated the father’s actually-exercised right of custody when it took place – There was not sufficient evidence on record proving the father’s consent or acquiescence to the change in the girls’ habitual residence – None of the circumstances alleged by the mother implied a grave risk for the girls if they returned to Norway – The girls’ statements evidenced that their opinions were influenced by their mother – The child support payments fixed in the first instance court judgment were overturned because this issue is outside the scope of application of the HCCH 1996 Child Protection Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return order upheld; the retention was in breach of actually exercised rights of custody, the children having retained their Canadian habitual residence, and none of the exceptions was applicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child born in 2015 in Japan ― Father and child Brazilian nationals, mother unknown ― Unmarried parents ― Mother and child lived in Japan for one year and moved to Brazil in March 2016 ― Mother removed the child to Japan in November 2018 ― Drinking alcohol, use of drugs and verbal violence of the father ― Father filed a petition for the child’s return to the Tokyo Family Court in October 2018 ― Return ordered ― Appeal dismissed by the Tokyo High Court in March 2019 ― Main issues: habitual residence, consent or acquiescence, and grave risk.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

2 children wrongfully removed (aged 5 and 8 at the time of the decision) – Nationals of Brazil and Argentina – Divorced parents – Father national of Argentina, Venezuela, and Brazil – Mother national of Argentina – By a homologated conciliation agreement of 5 June 2014, the father had custody for a period of four months and thereafter the parents were to have joint custody – Children lived in Brazil until July 2014 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Brazil in October 2014 – A decision or determination under Art. 15 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was obtained - Application dismissed – Main issues: custody rights and acquiescence – “Rights of custody” has an autonomous meaning under the Convention, which crucially includes the right to determine the child’s place of residence – This right may be attributed to a parent by the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal, as well as by the context, structure and content of an agreement on custody homologated in that State – “Acquiescence is a question of the actual subjective intention of the wronged parent, and not of the outside world’s perception of her intentions”

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

Case remitted to lower court

Three children wrongfully removed aged 4, nearly 3, and 19 months - All children born in Spain - Unmarried parents - Father national of Morocco - Mother national of UK - Children placed in foster care by Spanish authorities in September 2020 - Children returned to their parents in April 2021 - Children lived in Spain until the mother wrongfully removed them to England on 23 August 2021 - Application for return filed with the Central Authority of England and Wales on 25 February 2022 by the father - Return ordered - Mother appealed under art.13(1)(a) and (b) - Appeal allowed, case remitted - Main issues: first instance judge should have heard oral evidence on the issue of consent and should have considered allegations under art.13(1)(b) collectively, not independently

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed and case remitted to a different judge of the Ontario Court of Justice to re-determine the Article 13(1)(b) issues.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; none of the exceptions raised by the mother was applicable.

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

Return ordered with undertakings offered

2 children wrongfully retained, aged 11 and 13 on the date of the judgment - Nationals of France and Canada - Married parents - Mother national of Canada - Joint custody - Children lived in France until July 2013 - Application for return filed with the Superior Court of Quebec in October 2013 - Direct judicial communications took place - Return ordered - Main issues: consent / acquiescence, Art. 13(1) (b) grave risk exception to return, undertakings, objection of the child to return - Consent or acquiescence to the removal or retention must be clear, positive and unequivocal - The risk of the children suffering psychological harm by returning without the taking parent is mitigated by arranging for appropriate measures to protect the taking parent to be in place upon return, through administrative and judicial co-operation with the authorities of the requesting State - Return may be ordered if the child is mainly concerned about being removed from the taking parent, rather than being opposed to returning to the requested State or fearing the left-behind parent

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

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) to show acquiescence had been met.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed; the removal was wrongful but the case was remitted to the Family Court in Christchurch to enable it to determine whether any of the exceptions were applicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

The father's appeal was dismissed; there was no reason to order the return of the child since he had been taken to the State of his habitual residence.