Case Law Search

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Two children retained in Japan ― United States nationals born in 2009 and 2012 ― Married parents living in the United States ― Father and mother nationals of the United States ― Father and children travelled to Japan from November 2018 and resided there from 2019 ― Mother visited father and children in Japan several times but did not relocate there ― Mother and fathers’ relationship deteriorated and father retained children in Japan from November 2019 ― Father instituted in-court conciliation to obtain sole custody before the Japanese courts in January 2020 ― Mother sought return of the children in the Japanese courts in February 2020 ― Japanese courts dismissed the claim as children were habitually resident in Japan ― Habitual residence determined on the grounds of the children’s close connection and integration into their social and family environment ― Limited role of the parents’ intentions in determining habitual residence ― Main issue: Habitual residence.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the objections of the child were of sufficient strength to activate the Article 13(2) exception.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and non-return order confirmed; the boy objected to a return and the standard required under Article 13(2) had been reached.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Challenge rejected and return order confirmed. The removal was wrongful and the court of appeal had correctly found the Article 13 exceptions to be inapplicable.

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 | 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.

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

Appeal dismissed; the pleas raised were not grounds for quashing.

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).

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.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the exceptions in art. 13 CLaH 80 did not apply.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered. Though there was a risk of harm to the child within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b), this risk could be sufficiently managed by protective measures. Furthermore, the child did not object to returning to Italy per se and that he had not attained a degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of his views. 

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered

Return ordered.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | 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

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered

Return ordered. There was no evidence that the father consented or acquiesced to the children remaining in the US. The father filed his petition for the return of the children within one year and, even if more than a year had elapsed, the children were not settled in the US for the purposes of Article 12(2).

Consent - 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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Human Rights - Art. 20

Unanimous: appeal inadmissible; the issues relating to the consistency of the 1980 Convention with the Constitution had been resolved in an earlier case, and admissibility of the appeal was not necessary for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return refused

Return refused; the retention was wrongful, being in breach of the mother's rights of custody, but the child had valid objections to a return.

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

Return ordered