Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

By five votes to two: infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); award of damages on the basis of Article 41 of the ECHR.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in the United States.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The mother’s complaint appeal (Beschwerde) was rejected and the order for return was maintained with the specification that the child was to be returned to Spain but not necessarily to Madrid.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered, with the father ordered to pay the costs of return; the child was habitually resident in Turkey at the time of her removal and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Child born in 2014 in Singapore ― Parents married in 2008 ― Nationality of the entire family is unknown ― The family travelled abroad in August 2017 ― On the evening of 30 August 2017 in Japan, father drank and exercised physical violence against the mother ― Father arrested and criminal proceedings instituted ― Parents reached a settlement on 15 September 2017 ― Parents agreed that they would live separately ― The mother would live in Japan with the child as the primary caregiver, whereas the father would pay damages and maintenance and have visitation with the child ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to Singapore in the Tokyo Family Court in December 2017 ― Application dismissed ― Appeal dismissed by the Tokyo High Court in May 2018 ― Main issues: consent and grave risk.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in Australia at the time of the removal and in any event there had been no breach of actually exercised rights of custody.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Challenge to legality upheld; the father had not acquiesced in the retention of the children, therefore the case was remitted to the Cour d'Appel de Paris.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Return ordered; the "grave risk of harm" exception had not been established.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the father had consented to the relocation of the child on the basis of Article 13(1)(a).

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Procedural Matters

Judgment vacated and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further proceedings; the return of the child to Scotland did not render the case moot; there was a live dispute between the parties over where the child should be raised, and a possibility of effectual relief for the prevailing parent.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

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

Return ordered

The court held that the child had been wrongfully retained in Canada and ordered her return to New Zealand.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 13 – National of Brazil – Divorced parents– Father national of Brazil – Mother national of Brazil – Joint right to determine the residence of the child. Father has custody. – Child lived in Brazil until 31 October 2014 – Application for return filed with the Courts of Switzerland on 28 April 2016 – Return refused – Main issue: Objections of the Child to a Return – Child was mature enough for its opinion to be taken into consideration which constituted a reason to refuse the return based on Article 13(2).

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

One child wrongfully retained at age 3 – National of United Kingdom and Switzerland – Married parents – Father national of United Kingdom and Turkey – Mother national of Switzerland and Turkey – Joint parental responsibility – Child lived in the United Kingdom until 7 August 2020 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 12 April 2021 – Return refused – Main issue: Acquiescence/Consent Art.13(1)(a)] –Father’s behaviour deemed acquiescence, namely signing a residence registration, bringing child’s personal effects, transferring money, signing a divorce agreement accepting Switzerland as the place of jurisdiction.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

One child wrongfully retained at age 8 – National of Chile – Unmarried parents – Father national of Chile – Mother national of Chile – Agreement that the “cuidado personal” is solely attributed to the mother, but in fact it is exercised by both – Child lived in Chile until 14 August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 19 September 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: Rights of custody – Even though formally they agreed that the mother has the sole “cuidado personal” in fact both of the parents exercise it and therefore after the agreed date of return to Chile the retention was wrongful.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return ordered