Case Law Search

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

Return ordered

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

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return refused

Retention wrongful but return refused; the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) had been proved to show that the father had consented to the children living in Finland.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful as it was in breach of the father's custody rights. The standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) to show that the father had acquiesced had not been met.

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

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the High Court for it to exercise its discretion as to whether the child should be returned to England.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Appeal allowed and return ordered with undertakings given; the standard of proof required under Article 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) had not been met.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the father had consented to the relocation of mother and child to Australia.

Unanimous: no infringement of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz).

Human Rights - Art. 20

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Issues Relating to Return

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered, subject to conditions; none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; consent had been established in accordance with the terms of Article 13(1)(a).

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

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.

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

Return ordered

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

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

Return refused

2 children (twins) wrongfully removed at age 3 - Nationals of Canada and the United States of America - Married parents - Father national of the United States of America - Mother national of Canada - Joint custody - Children lived in the United States of America until October 2013 - Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Manitoba on February 2014 - Return refused - Main issues: consent to removal, Art 13(1) (b) grave risk exception to return, undertakings - Consent and acquiescence, within the meaning of Art. 13(1)(a), must be given “their plain, ordinary meaning”, and evidence to establish consent or acquiescence must be “clear and cogent” - The provision by one parent of time-limited travel consent is insufficient to prove that the parent consented to the removal or retention - Exceptionally, return may be refused under Art. 13(1)(b) if there is compelling evidence of severe long-standing and escalating physical and psychological harm inflicted on the taking parent and the children

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

2 children wrongfully removed at ages 3 and 2 - Nationals of Switzerland and the United Kingdom - Divorced parents - Father national of the United Kingdom - Mother national of Switzerland - Joint rights of custody; the father had supervised access rights while the mother effectively exercised custody - Repeated incidents of domestic violence were known to the social services - Children lived in the United Kingdom (England and Wales) until 25 March 2016 - Application for return filed with the first instance court in Switzerland on 5 September 2016 - Return ordered - Main issues: exceptions to ordering return - The exceptions to return should be interpreted restrictively - The determination whether ordering return would place the child in an intolerable situation, within the meaning of Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Child Abduction Hague Convention, may only be made in respect of the child, and not the taking parent -  Return must be ordered if the actual cause of the risk of placing the child in an intolerable situation upon return is an unfounded refusal of the taking parent to return with the child - The taking parent may stay in an area far from the left-behind parent's place of residence upon return to the requesting State, in order to preserve the stability that was gained by geographic separation from the left-behind parent