Case Law Search

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the applicant and the court both had rights of custody and were actually exercising those rights at the time of the removal.

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

Return ordered

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

Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10 | Procedural Matters

Appeal upheld in part: the tribunal administratif had jurisdiction to hear the case, but the application was rejected on the merits since the Central Authority had the power not to process the application on the basis of Article 27 of the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the child had never acquired a habitual residence in Belgium.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was in breach of rights of custody and was therefore wrongful.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the children were not habitually resident in Greece at the date of the removal.

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

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal rejected on a majority verdict; application dismissed. The majority found the children to be habitually resident in the US at the date of the retention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the child had acquired a habitual residence in Germany.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful the child having become habitually resident in Germany following the father's acquiescence in the initial wrongful removal.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed; the Court of Appeals held that the mother's right of veto over the removal of the child from Scotland did not afford her a "right of custody" for the purposes of the Convention, consequently the removal was not wrongful. The case was remitted to the District Court for further orders.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful because the children had lost their habitual residence in France upon departure and had acquired a habitual residence in Alberta, Canada.

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

Return refused

Return refused; retention wrongful, but the objections of the child were upheld.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration made that the removal of the child was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. The father was deemed to hold and to be actually exercising rights of custody.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application inadmissible; There was an objective and reasonable justification for the difference in treatment between married and unmarried fathers with regard to the automatic acquisition of parental rights.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Germany on the relevant date.

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

Return ordered

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

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful being in breach of the father's rights of custody.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The complaint appeal was broadly rejected and it was once again ordered that the daughter be returned; the deadline for this was extended. It was not possible to establish any reason to believe that the child’s wellbeing would be endangered in the event that she were returned.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

The complaint appeal was approved and the Applicant’s application for the children to be returned was rejected. It was ruled that there was a grave risk of physical or mental harm to both of the children, meaning that the exception set out in Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention applied.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

The complaint appeal was approved and the father’s application for a return was refused. The court ruled that the child’s wellbeing would be endangered were he to be returned.