Case Law Search

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return ordered

Removal wrongful ad return ordered; the children had not settled in their new environment and the objectives of the older children were not of the requisite standard to justify a non-return order being made.

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.

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

Leave to appeal refused and return order confirmed; the removal was wrongful and the objections of the children to a return did not satisfy the standards of Article 13(2).

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Challenge dismissed and return order confirmed. The court of appeal had not breached Article 13(2) by refusing to hear the children.

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

Appeal dismissed and return ordered subject to conditions; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention.

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.

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) | Best Interests of the Child

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.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return refused

Return refused. 

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

European Court of Human Rights held, by 5 votes to 2, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In 1980 Hague Convention proceedings national authorities were required to examine whether it would be appropriate to hear the child as part of their decision making.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Guidance on the application of the Convention issued

Child born in 2016 in Mexico – habitual residence in the United States of America – wrongful retention – issues: grave risk (Art. 13(1)(b)) – domestic violence – child’s objections to return (Art. 13(2)) – procedural matters – binding jurisprudential thesis issued.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the trial judge had been correct in finding a grave risk of psychological harm to have been established to the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Convention and that adequate arrangement could not have been made to secure the protection of the children after their return to Greece pursuant to Article 11(4) of Brussels II a Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003).

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

Return ordered

Return ordered. Whilst the child objected to the return and was of an age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to take her views into account, the Court exercised its discretion to order a return. 

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

Return ordered

The court held that the exceptions under Article 13 of the 1980 Convention did not apply in this case and ordered the return of the children to Israel. 

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | 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) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Issues Relating to Return

Return refused

Return refused. The father did not have rights of custody within the meaning of Article 3. 

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

Return ordered

One child wrongfully removed at age 8 – National of Australia and the UK – Unmarried parents – Father national of Australia and the UK – Mother national of Australia and the UK – Joint custody and pending relocation application – Child lived in Australia until 2020 – Return ordered – Main issues: Article 13(1)(b) not made out. The child objected to returning but the Judge declined to exercise his discretion to refuse to return the child. 

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained at age 6 – National of Mexico – divorced parents – Father national of Mexico – Mother national of Mexico – Joint custody, the child lived with the mother and the father had weekend visitation rights – Child lived in Mexico until May 2022 – Application for return filed with the Mexican Central Authority in June 2025 – Return ordered – Main issues: Though the mother had sole custody of the child, the father retained parental rights which were equivalent to rights of custody under the 1980 Convention. The father's actions did not amount to acquiescence as he had agreed for the child to travel to the US only until May 2025.