Case Law Search

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal had proper grounds to hold that the retention was wrongful, and had observed correctly that the father had acquiesced in the child's residence in France.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed insofar as it was admissible. In particular, the mother had failed to prove the existence of acquiescence or a grave risk of danger.

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

Case remitted to lower court

Wrongful retention of a child when she was 5 years old - US national - parents married - father US national - mother Colombian national - both parents had custody rights under the Convention - child lived in the US until 19 December 2015 - return application was filed before the US Central Authority on 13 June 2016 - lower court was ordered to make a new judgment in the international return proceedings, taking into account the child's views - main issues: aims of the Convention - Preamble, settlement of the child, acquiescense, art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, child's objections to return – the best interests of the child is to be returned to his or her center of life without delay, unless one of the grounds of exception is proven - assessment of the child's settlement is appropriate only if one year has elapsed between the wrongful conduct and the date of filing of the international return application - the grave risk must be greater than the natural hardship that may result from a change of his or her residence or the dislocation of the current living group - the decision on the application of the exception of Art. 13(2) requires consideration of the voice of the child who is of sufficient age and maturity.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully removed at age 13 - Divorced parents - Father had been granted custody - Child lived in Germany until March 2010 - Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Germany on 7 June 2010 - Return refused - Main issues: Rights of custody - The parent who issued the return request had not been exercising his custody rights at the time of removal, and therefore the removal could not be considered wrongful within the meaning of the 1980 Child Abduction Hague Convention

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return order upheld, but the orders for costs which had been made by the lower courts in favour of the father were set aside.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The mother's allegation of grave risk was not found to be proved.

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

Return refused

The court found that the father acquiesced in the children remaining in Canada, and refused to order the return of the children under the the Article 13(a) exception.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 |

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

one child wrongfully retained between age 4 and 5– National of unknown –unmarried parents – Father national of unknown – Mother national of unknown – Shared parental responsibility – Child lived in Portugal until 10 March 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 23 April 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: Removal and Retention – The father could not prove that the mother had given her consent for the child to remain in Switzerland and the mother filed an appeal within the one year period set out in Article 12.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

2 children allegedly wrongfully removed at ages 4 and 7 – Nationals of the United States of America – Parents pending divorce – Father national of USA – Mother national of USA, UK and Ireland – Parents were still married at the time of mother’s wrongful retention – Children lived in Illinois, USA (until 8 June 2022) – Application for return filed with the courts of Illinois, USA on 2 September 2022 – Return ordered 28 February 2023 – Main issues: Where there is a grave risk of harm to the children under Article 13(1)(b) the analysis of protective measures should not be limited to the measures available but should also consider whether these measures would be effective in the specific circumstances.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; by a 2:1 majority the Court found that Article 13(1)(a) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had been activated, one judge found that this was on the basis of consent, the other as a result of acquiescence.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The court found that the Convention was not applicable to the case but dismissed the appeal on the basis that the child's interests were best served by a return to the United States.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Case remitted to lower court

1 child allegedly wrongfully removed - Married parents - Father national of Italy - Mother national of Italy - Joint custody - Child lived in Belgium until February 2014 - Return refused - Main issues: Rights of custody - A removal cannot be considered wrongful if it did not breach custody rights that were actually exercised at the time of the removal 

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Two children wrongfully removed at ages nine and seven – Married parents – Shared parental custody – Children lived in Spain until 5 February 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 17 February 2016 –Application dismissed – Main issue(s): Habitual residence - is understood to mean the actual centre of the child's life, which is determined by the factual circumstances; Consent - the departure of the spouse does not require any approval by the other; the only thing requiring approval is the change of the children's place of residence abroad; Grave risk - must be interpreted restrictively: meaning a serious danger, initial language and reintegration difficulties typically do not constitute a serious danger.