Case Law Search

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

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.

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

Appeal allowed and case remitted to trial court; determination to be made as to what undertakings, if any, would be sufficient to ensure the safety of the children upon their return to Mexico pending the outcome of custody proceedings.

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.

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.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the child objected to a return and the standard required by Article 13(2) had been reached.

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

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the trial judge to enable the child's views to be ascertained.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

The Court unanimously ruled that Hungary had breached Article 8 of the ECHR where domestic courts failed to act expeditiously in the proceedings to return the child and the national authorities had failed to take adequate and effective measures for the enforcement of the return order. It also awarded the father compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; the child was settled in his new environment and the Court exercised its discretion not to order his return.

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

Return refused

There had been a fundamental change of circumstances as the mother was no longer willing to return to Poland. The judge set aside the initial ruling and refused the application for return based on the Article 13(1)(b) exception.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Best Interests of the Child | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was held not to be habitually resident in California at the time of the retention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions invoked was applicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Child (US and Japanese national) born in 2016 in the US ― Father a US national, mother a Japanese national ― Unmarried parents ― The father has been using cannabis and exercised violence against the mother ― Parenting arrangement between the parents based on joint custody and alternate stay of the child every week ― Approved by the US court in October 2018 ― Mother took the child to Japan with the father’s consent for three weeks in December 2018 ― Mother never returned and started to retain the child in Japan early January 2019 ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to the Tokyo Family Court in July 2019 ― The mother attempted suicide ― Return application dismissed ― Appeal allowed and return ordered by the Tokyo High Court in January 2020 ― Main issue: Grave risk for the child to be returned.

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

Return ordered

Father was a US national and mother was a Japanese national ― Parents married in 2014 in Japan ― Their sons were born in 2016 and 2017 in Japan respectively ― The entire family moved to California, the United States in 2018 ― In 2022 mother started to seek divorce but father refused ― Mother took the children to Japan in December 2022 ― Mother declared consensual divorce in February 2023 in Japan following their alleged divorce agreement entered in November 2022 ― Father denied to have signed a divorce form or divorce agreement ― Upon father’s petition, the Osaka Family Court ordered the return of the children to the United States ― Appeal dismissed and return ordered ― Main issue: Consent and Grave Risk.

Non-Convention Issues | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful, the child being habitually resident in Canada at the relevant date.

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.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

2 children wrongfully removed (born in 2005 and 2007) - Separated parents - The Purvian courts had effectively granted temporary custody to the mother on 21 November 2013, and then to the father on 1 October 2014 (following the removal)  - Children lived in Peru until 20 February 2014 - Application for return filed with the District Court on 17 February 2015 - Return ordered subject to undertakings - Main issues: rights of custody, Art.13(1)(b) "grave risk" exception to return, undertakings - A very severe degree of psychological abuse is sufficient to conclude that the Art. 13(1)(b) "grave risk" exception to return under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention applies, even in cases in which there is very little or no evidence of physical abuse