Case Law Search

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in the United States.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the children were habitually resident in the United States of America at the date of the alleged wrongful retention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The mother’s complaint appeal (Beschwerde) was rejected and the order for return was maintained with the specification that the child was to be returned to Spain but not necessarily to Madrid.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered, with the father ordered to pay the costs of return; the child was habitually resident in Turkey at the time of her removal and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the child's habitual residence was in Denmark at the relevant date.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | 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.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Two children retained in Japan ― United States nationals born in 2009 and 2012 ― Married parents living in the United States ― Father and mother nationals of the United States ― Father and children travelled to Japan from November 2018 and resided there from 2019 ― Mother visited father and children in Japan several times but did not relocate there ― Mother and fathers’ relationship deteriorated and father retained children in Japan from November 2019 ― Father instituted in-court conciliation to obtain sole custody before the Japanese courts in January 2020 ― Mother sought return of the children in the Japanese courts in February 2020 ― Japanese courts dismissed the claim as children were habitually resident in Japan ― Habitual residence determined on the grounds of the children’s close connection and integration into their social and family environment ― Limited role of the parents’ intentions in determining habitual residence ― Main issue: Habitual residence.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed, the child was habitually resident in Canada. 

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and non-return order confirmed; the boy objected to a return and the standard required under Article 13(2) had been reached.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in Australia at the time of the removal and in any event there had been no breach of actually exercised rights of custody.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Best Interests of the Child

Return ordered

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

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

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but a return to Portugal would expose the child to a grave risk of danger.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the mother's constitutional rights had not been violated by the application of the Convention, nor had the lower courts erred in their application of the Convention: the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was wrongful but the child had become settled in her new environment. The return was therefore refused.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal upheld in part, return ordered subject to undertakings / a mirror order being entered in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The retention was wrongful and the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out. Furthermore, the Convention was found to be consistent with the South African Constitution.

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

Challenge to legality dismissed; the retention was wrongful and the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out.

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

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return refused