Procedural Matters
Return ordered
1 2 3 4 5 7 19 25
Wrongful retention of a 1-year-old boy – Costa Rican – unmarried parents – Nicaraguan father – Dominican mother – Joint custody rights – The boy lived in Costa Rica until January 2018 – The return request was filed before a Nicaraguan court in January 2019 – Return ordered – Main issues: procedural matters – The parents agreed that the child would return to Costa Rica in the company of his father once the latter was assured that he would not be criminally sanctioned for child abduction.
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters
Appeal dismissed, return ordered
3 4 11 12 13(1)(b) 19
Wrongful retention of a child when she was 4 years old - Trinidadian - Trinidadian parents – Joint custody but primary and residential custody with the mother - Child lived in the United States for 2 years and 4 months until she was removed and wrongfully retained in Trinidad as from 15 July 2017 – The return application was filed before a Trinidadian Family Court on 28 November 2017 – Appeal dismissed, return ordered - Main issues: habitual residence, removal and retention, grave risk, procedural matters – The child’s habitual residence was found to be in the U.S. because that was the mother’s place of residence and the girl had lived there for a considerable time - Removal had not been wrongful since the father had a temporary timesharing order but retention was since it breached the mother’s right of custody – The exception in Article 13(1)(b) was not granted as mere financial discomfort was not grave enough
Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters
1 3 4 5 12 13(1)(b) 16 19 20
Appeal dismissed. The removal was wrongful and the exceptions of the Convention inapplicable.
Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
3 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 19
Return ordered; the retention was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) had not been met to show that the father had consented.
Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
3 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 17 19
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.
1 2 3 5 11 12 13(1)(b) 13(2) 19 26
Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and Article 13(1)(b) was not proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)
1 3 13(1)(b) 13(2) 19 20 12(1) 26
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters
1 2 11 13(1)(a) 19 26
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; Article 13(1)(a) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
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
11 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 16 18 19 12(2)
Removal wrongful but return refused; the child was settled in his new environment and the Court exercised its discretion not to order his return.
Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Procedural Matters
3 7 8 19 29
Challenge upheld and decision of the Cour d'appel overruled; case remitted to the Cour d'appel of Toulouse.