Case Law Search

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The retention was wrongful and the exceptions raised inapplicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

On appeal, the lower instance decision of the Osaka Family Court was upheld and the Osaka High Court ordered the return of the children, C and D, from Japan to France. The Court rejected the father’s argument that the return of the children should be refused because the mother had not exercised her custody rights and because of the children’s views.

Interpretation of the Convention | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Guidance on the application of the Convention issued

2 children retained at ages 11 and 8 – Nationals of Canada – Married parents – Father national of Canada – Mother national of Canada – Father transferred physical custody in a notarised letter to the mother for the period April 2013 to August 2014, to allow the children to enroll in a Canadian school – Children lived in Germany until April 2013 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Germany on 11 April 2014 – Return decision of the Court of Appeal of Ontario of 13 September 2016 was appealed to the Supreme Court, but the children were returned to Germany before the Court rendered its judgment; despite the appeal being moot, the Court considered the issues raised to be important and in need of clarification – Main issues: interpretation of the Convention, habitual residence, objections of the child to a return, procedural matters – To ensure uniformity of State practice, courts should generally adopt the interpretation of the Convention that has gained the most support in other foreign domestic courts – The “hybrid approach” to determining habitual residence (which considers all relevant factual links and circumstances in their entirety, instead of focusing either on parental intention or the child’s acclimatisation) should be followed – Courts should adopt a non-technical and straightforward approach to considering the child’s objections to return – It is up to the judicial authorities to ensure that the State lives up to its obligations to act expeditiously under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention – Convention proceedings should be judge-led, not party-driven, and judges should not hesitate to use their authority to expedite proceedings

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

Return ordered

Wrongful retention of an adolescent in Uruguay – Custody right exercised solely by the mother – The adolescent lived in Spain with his mother for 4 years – The return application was filed before the Spanish Central Authority – Return ordered – Main issues: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, objections of the child to a return, best interests of the child – The father did not prove any situation in which there was a grave risk actually making return intolerable and exposing the adolescent gravely – The adolescent voiced a preference but there was no true objection in the sense of an unwavering repudiation towards return.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Best Interests of the Child | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Non-Convention Issues

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Wrongful retention of a child approximately 12 years old at the time of judgment – national of Argentina and Uruguay – separated parents – father of Argentine nationality – mother of Uruguayan nationality – child born in Argentina and lived there until around age 4, then moved to Uruguay with his mother – application for international return initiated on August 19, 2020, before the Uruguayan Central Authority – appeal dismissed, return denied – key issues: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, child’s objection to return; procedural matters; best interests of the child – returning the child would have entailed a grave risk of further psychological harm – the child's opposition to returning to Uruguay, considering his age and maturity, was decisive in denying the return – the Court indicated that mediation could be reopened to address the child's re-establishment of ties with his mother.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Rights of Access - Art. 21 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; on the basis that the father was prepared to contemplate the children remaining in New Zealand if he could have satisfactory access in the United States.

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

Return ordered with undertakings offered

Return ordered, subject to undertakings; the removal was wrongful and neither Article 13(1)(b) nor Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return refused in respect of the older child; the standard required under Article 13(2) had been met. Return ordered in respect of the younger child; the standard required under Article 13(2) had not been met.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed; there had been a fundamental change in the circumstances since the original decision and it was now appropriate to take the girl's objections into account. The case was remitted to the trial judge.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the father had not acquiesced in the removal of the children. The Court of Appeal also found that the trial judge had not erred in the manner in which he had made a determination as to the age and maturity of the eldest child.

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

Appeal allowed; case remitted to the High Court for further investigation into the children's objections.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, but the court exercised its discretion not to return the children. This was on the basis of Article 13(2) with respect to the two older children, and on the basis of Article 13(1)(b) as regards the youngest child.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed, removal wrongful but return refused; the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had been made out.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return refused

Retention wrongful but return refused; the child was settled in his new environment in terms of Article 12(2); the mother had acquiesced in the retention in terms of Article 13(1)(a); and the child objected to being returned and had attained an age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to take account of his views in terms of Article 13(2).

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the children were habitually resident in the United States at the relevant date, and the standard required under Articles 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) had not been met.

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

Return ordered with undertakings offered

Return ordered and undertakings offered; the removal was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of physical harm had not been met.

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.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; matter was stood down to allow the mother to reconsider whether she would return to Germany with the child.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and neither Article 13(1)(b) nor Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required by the Convention.