Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained at age 2 - Married parents - Father national of the United States of America - Mother national of Canada - Child lived in the United States of America until 2013 - Application for return filed in 2013 - Return ordered - Main issue: Habitual residence, acquiescence and the Art.13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return - The application of the Art. 13(1)(b) exception requires the child’s exposure to a high degree, intensity and frequency of physical or psychological abuse - A return order that does not deliver the child and parent directly to the left-behind parent upon return diminishes the risk of incidents of domestic abuse occurring, while ensuring that the appropriate forum adjudicates the merits of custody and access issues

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Non-Convention Issues

Return ordered

Return ordered with undertakings and protective measures.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return ordered

Return ordered.

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

Appeal allowed in part; the removal was wrongful but the return of the girls would be refused for the father by his actions had acquiesced in their remaining in Israel.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; none of the Article 13 exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - 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 were applicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

2 children wrongfully removed at ages 9 and 7 – Nationals of Korea – Married parents – Father national of The Republic of Korea– Mother national of The Republic of Korea– Parents had joint custody – Children lived in Japan until 28 June 2016 – Application for return filed with the court of The Republic of Korea on 21 April 2017 – Return refused – Main issue: Article 13(1)(b) – a “grave risk” includes cases where the child is at risk of psychological harm due to frequent violence committed against the other parent.

Non-Convention Issues

Return refused

The return of the child was barred as a consequence of his pending asylum appeal.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

1 child allegedly retained at age 6 months – National of the US Father national of US – Mother national of Canada – Father gave open-ended consent to mother to travel with the child to Canada – Child lived in United States for first 42 days of life – Application for return filed with the courts of Canada in December 2017 – The return decision of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court was appealed to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal where the application was dismissed – Main issues: habitual residence – the Court of Appeal applied the “hybrid approach” to determine the habitual residence of the child and found the child to be habitually resident in Nova Scotia.

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

Return ordered

2 children wrongfully retained at ages 1 and 2 – Married parents – Father national of the United States – Mother national of Canada – Both parents had rights of custody under the laws of Iowa – Children lived in the United State until 16 June 2018 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of the United States on 18 August 2018 – Return ordered – Main issues: Article 3 -  children habitually resident in the United States, father had rights of custody and had only agreed to a one month stay in Canada, retention was therefore wrongful - Article 13(1)(a) Consent & Acquiescence – Exception not established, there is no “clear and cogent evidence of unequivocal consent or acquiescence” - Article 13(1)(b) Grave Risk – Exception not established, measures of protection are available in Iowa.

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

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.

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

Return ordered

The Court ordered the return of the children. The Court did not accept the fathers account of events and held that, even if they were true, they would not amount to a grave risk envisaged by Article 13(1)(b).

Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed; the conditions for the suspension of the provisional enforcement were not met.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and non-return order upheld; the retention was wrongful but the child would face a grave risk of harm if returned.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions raised applied.

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

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.

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

Return refused

Return refused.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Application inadmissible; all elements of the complaints were found to be manifestly ill-founded.

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

The Court unanimously ruled that Romania had breached Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to thoroughly assess the best interests of the child and to give the father the opportunity to present his case. It also awarded the father compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.