Case Law Search

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and no exception raised was applicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

One child wrongfully removed at age 1 – National of Ukraine – Married parents – Father national of Ukraine – Mother national of Ukraine – Mother and father have joint custody –Child lived in Ukraine until 02.03.2022 –Application for return filed with the Central Authority/courts (choose!) of [State] on [date] –Return refused – Main issue(s): Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return  – [Summary of the outcome of the main contentious issue(s) The return of a child to a war zone where it could be exposed to a real threat entails a serious risk of physical or psychological harm being caused to the child.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the father was to have sole possession of the children's travel documentation.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the children were habitually resident in Scotland on the relevant date and the argument based on Article 13(1)(b) was dismissed.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered despite a pending asylum application.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Issues Relating to Return |

Return ordered with undertakings offered

One child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 5 and a half – National of Ukraine and the United Kingdom – Father national of the United Kingdom and South Africa – Mother national of Hungary and Ukraine – Child lived in Ukraine in the mother’s custody with regular contact with the father – Following Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022 child and Mother move to England In April 2022 – Mother plans to return to Ukraine in Summer 2022 – Father obtains Prohibited Steps Order from English Court - Application for return issued on 29 July 2022 – Main issues: habitual residence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – risk of exposure to war – risk of loss of relationship with father due to alleged closure of court system and mothers hostility to father – A child’s retained roots in Ukraine support his habitual residence remains in the Ukraine – The risk faced by the child upon return to Ukraine failed to meet the threshold of ‘grave harm’ – the region was not subject to active hostility and life continued as normal – the court system was functioning – mother promoted contact – undertakings reduced any risk below grave risk threshold. – Return ordered

Procedural Matters

Appeal against the provisional stay of execution of the return order dismissed.

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

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

1 child allegedly wrongfully removed at age 13 – National of Canada – Divorced parents – Parents have joint custody and mother has primary care – Child lived in Arizona, USA until August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Alberta, Canada on May 18, 2018 – Application dismissed – Main issue: Art 13(1)(b) – It would be an intolerable situation to return the child to Arizona as neither parent resides there.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful as the child was habitually resident in Australia at the relevant time, and none of the exceptions had been proved.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed; return refused.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained in Japan ― National of Singapore and Japan ― Married parents ― Father national of Singapore – Mother national of Japan ― Child lived in Singapore until 2016 ― Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Singapore in 2016 ― Petition for return filed with the courts of Japan in 2017 ― Return ordered ― Main issues: acquiescence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – There is no grave risk in ordering the return of the child in cases involving domestic violence between the parents where a protection order is in place in the requesting State and where there is no evidence that any violence has been committed against the child ― It cannot be said that a parent has not actually exercised rights of custody at the time of removal if he did not know the whereabouts of the child at that time  ― A parent has not approved of or acquiesced in the retention if he filed a return application with the Central Authority of the requesting State about one month after coming to know of the removal, and with the courts of the requested State almost one year after the removal, respectively.

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

Return refused

Return refused. Though the mother was indeed wrongfully retaining the child, by the time the father made an application for return the child was settled in England and habitually resident there. 

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return ordered

Return ordered.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

Return refused

Return refused, there was a grave risk of harm to the child if returned to Australia, within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b). The undertakings and protective measures offered by the father did not adequately protect the child against the identified risks.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | 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)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

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

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; the retention was wrongful and the grounds for exception under the Convention were not applicable.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; there was no retention of the child.