Case Law Search

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, 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.

Interpretation of the Convention | Human Rights - Art. 20

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Where a grant of asylum has been made by the Home Secretary it is impossible for the court later to order a return of the subject child under the 1980 Hague Convention. Equally, it is impossible for a return order to be made while an asylum claim is pending (including pending an appeal). Such an order would be in direct breach of the principle of non-refoulement.

The court ordered that the children be returned to Israel, but that this order should not take effect until 15 days after the promulgation by the First-tier Tribunal of its decision on the appeal by the mother and the children against the refusal of the grant of asylum by the Home Secretary. If the First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal then the return order would be stayed. If the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, then the return would be implemented, unless the mother wished to appeal on a point of law, in which case the court would appraise the strength or otherwise of the grounds of appeal. 

Non-Convention Issues | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return ordered

Return ordered.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

One child (Russian national) born in 2014 resided in Russia ― Father and mother Russian nationals ― Parents married in 2014 in Russia ― Parents divorced in 2016 ― Mother took the child to Japan in October 2017 and settled there following her remarriage ― A ne exeat order of the Russian court was partly set aside by confirming the child’s temporary residence in Japan in January 2019 ― Central Authority of Japan assisted the Father with a return application in July 2018 ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to the Tokyo Family Court in October 2018 ― Return ordered ― Appeal dismissed by the Tokyo High Court in February 2019 ― Main issues: rights of custody and grave risk.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention in light of the intervening custody order made by the authorities in the State of the children's habitual residence.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful but Article 12(2) was successfully invoked, the child now being settled in her new environment.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Legal challenge dismissed and return order confirmed; the retention was wrongful and the conditions necessary for the application of Article 13(1)(b) and Article 20 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had not been met.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | 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 ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered to a Member State other than the State of the child's habitual residence; none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but the child would face a grave risk of harm if returned.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; removal wrongful but Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Issues Relating to Return

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child (UK national) removed from Singapore to Japan ― Parents married in 2010, living together mostly in Singapore and briefly in Japan ― Father Singaporean national, mother Indian national ― Divorce in 2014 ― Father provided with access right, Mother with right to primarily care for the child and freely relocate with the child to Japan ― Mother went to Japan with the child and returned to Singapore in 2014 ― Failed access, Father sought a modification of the relocation clause and the modality of access ― Mother definitively removed the child to Japan in 2015 ― Assistance of the Central Authority of Japan revoked in 2016 ― The father filed a petition for the child’s return to the Osaka Family Court in 2016 ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal dismissed and return refused by the Osaka High Court in 2016 ― Main issues: Habitual residence of the child ― Rights of custody of the father or the Singaporean court.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed. The removal was wrongful and the exceptions of the Convention inapplicable.

Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; Article 20 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was not engaged by the facts of the case.

Non-Convention Issues

Case remitted to lower court

One child aged 12 - National of Ukraine - Unmarried parents - Father national of Ukraine - Mother national of Ukraine - Mother married British national and gained spousal visa in 2017 - Child lived in Ukraine until 2018 when mother took child to UK - Mother wrongfully retained child - Father gained return order - Mother and child returned to Ukraine in May 2019 - Mother wrongfully removed child in October 2019 and returned to UK - Father granted second return order in July 2020 - Mother made asylum application for child on 20 October 2020 and applied to stay 1980 Hague Convention proceedings on 26 October 2020 - Child granted asylum on 28 May 2021 - Court overturned return order because of the child's asylum status - Father appealed this - Main issues: art.13(1)(b), art.13(2), and asylum claim - The grant of asylum did not automatically nullify Hague proceedings - Appeal allowed and case remitted for urgent case management hearing.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in the United States at the relevant date and the standard had not been met under Article 13(1)(a) to show that the father had acquiesced.

Human Rights - Art. 20

Application dismissed and return ordered; the Convention does not violate the Irish Constitution.