Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - 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

Return ordered; 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 | Undertakings | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered with undertakings offered; the removal was wrongful as the child was habitually resident in the United States at the relevant date.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the District Court had abused its discretion in declining to invoke its equitable power to hold that the father was disentitled to assert his claim in a United States District Court.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) had been met to indicate that the father had acquiesced.

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 under Article 13(2) not to make a return order.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return ordered

Return ordered; the standard required under Articles 13(1)(b), 13(2) and 12(2) had not been met.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the Court of Appeal declined to order the boy's return on the basis of his objections.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the retention was wrongful but the child's objections to a return were upheld.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Return refused: Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; a grave risk of harm was established but the court nevertheless exercised its discretion to make a return order.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful removal of two girls when they were 10 and 6 years old – Married parents – The girls lived in Spain until July 2016 – Appeal allowed, return ordered – Main issues: Removal and retention, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, objections of the child to a return, matters relating to return – There was no concluding evidence that the mother had consented to a change in the girls’ habitual residence to Argentina – There was no grave risk that returning to Spain would cause psychological or physical harm to the girls – The girls did not strongly resist against or oppose returning to Spain, they only stated a mere preference for continuing to live in Argentina – The circumstances of the case had to be taken into account and the COVID-19 health emergency context as well in order to make return immediate and safe.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Two children wrongfully retained at ages 14 and 12 – Nationals of Switzerland and Slovakia –Divorced parents – Father national of Switzerland and Slovakia – Mother national of Czech Republic – The children are under joint custody of the parents. The mother has sole care. – Children lived in Spain (until June 2021) – Application for return filed with the Courts of Switzerland on 16 September 2021 – Return ordered

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

This is the first and so far the only Supreme Court decision which modified a final and binding return order due to a change in circumstances under the Hague Convention Implementation Act. It is seen as a highly exceptional case.

4 children (2 sets of twins) wrongfully retained in Japan ― Children lived in the United States until July 2014, when the elder twins were 11 years and 7 months old and the younger twins 6 years and 5 months old ― Married parents ― Father national of the United States ― Mother national of Japan ― Order for the return of all children became final and binding in January 2016 ― The Supreme Court upheld the Osaka High Court decision modifying the return order due to change in circumstances and dismissed the petition for the return of the children ― Main issues: Grounds for refusal of a return order ― The elder twins’ objection to being returned ― A grave risk of placing the younger twins in an intolerable situation by separating them from their siblings 

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal rejected, return ordered. The retention was considered wrongful and the mother's allegation of grave risk upon return to the United States of America was not found to be proved.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; regard had to be paid to the terms of the provisional order of the Czech District Court permitting the children to live with the mother in Sweden.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Legal challenge dismissed; the retention was wrongful but decision to refuse to return the child on the basis of the Art. 13 exceptions upheld.

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

Return refused

Abduction of a 13-year-old girl – the child had lived in Nicaragua for ten years under the care of her maternal family – the return request was filed before Nicaraguan courts in April 2019 – return denied – key issues: habitual residence; Article 13(2) – the child’s habitual residence was found to be in Nicaragua as it was where she had developed her center of life, personal and cultural identity, and sense of belonging, stability, and security – the court determined that the child’s statements during the hearing constituted an objection to return according to Art. 13(2) of the Convention.

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

Return ordered

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

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

Wrongful retention of two girls when they were 8 and 11 years old – Uruguayan & Swedish – Unmarried parents – Uruguayan father – Uruguayan mother – Joint custody – The girls lived in the Kingdom of Norway until January 2019 – Return proceedings were commenced before Uruguayan courts on 27 May 2019 – Return ordered – Main issues: removal and retention, consent, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, objections of the child to a return, procedural matters, best interests of the child – Retention was wrongful because it violated the father’s actually-exercised right of custody when it took place – There was not sufficient evidence on record proving the father’s consent or acquiescence to the change in the girls’ habitual residence – None of the circumstances alleged by the mother implied a grave risk for the girls if they returned to Norway – The girls’ statements evidenced that their opinions were influenced by their mother – The child support payments fixed in the first instance court judgment were overturned because this issue is outside the scope of application of the HCCH 1996 Child Protection Convention.

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

Return ordered

Wrongful removal of a 7-year old girl – Chilean – unmarried parents – Chilean father – Argentine mother – custody rights belong with the father – the girl lived in Chile until late 2019 – return application submitted before the Family Court in Formosa, Argentina, in September 2020 – return ordered – main issues: removal and retention, settlement of the child, art. 13(1)(b) grave risk, objections of the child to the return, procedural matters, interpretation of the Convention, best interests of the child – retention was wrongful because the custody rights of the father, effectively exercised by him at the time, were infringed – the time required by the Convention to refuse the return on grounds of settlement of the child in her new environment did not elapse – no evidence that the child would be exposed to grave risk upon her return – there were no objections by the child showing an irreducible objection against returning to the place of habitual residence – due to effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the parents were invited to cooperate in the implementation of the return order and to avoid unnecessary delays – there are no incompatibilities between the Convention and the Convention on the Rights of The Child; both are meant to protect the best interests of the child.