Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was wrongful and notwithstanding the child's objections to a return the Court exercised its discretion to make a return order.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the children were no longer habitually resident in Australia on the relevant date.

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.

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

Return ordered

Order for return of the child to Japan. 

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful removal of a girl when she was 6 years old – American – Divorced parents – American father – shared custody rights; after removal, exclusive custody of the father – the girl lived in the U.S. since birth until mid-2022 – the return request was filed before the Argentine courts in August 2022 – return ordered – main issues: grave risk; jurisdiction issues; procedural matters; best interests of the child – the grave risk exception cannot be granted if the violence/sexual abuse reported can be duly addressed by the authorities in the State of habitual residence – the merits of the custody issue must be resolved in the State of habitual residence – the safe return measures must be adequately tailored to the best interests of the child and must not interfere with the merits of the rights of custody issue.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

4 children wrongfully removed - Nationals of the Netherlands - Married parents - Father and mother nationals of the Netherlands - Order of 22 November 2017 granted a certified authority ("gecertificeerde autoriteit") temporary custody pending the execution of a return order (if any); parents initially had joint custudy  - Children lived in an unidentified State until 14 June 2017 - Return refused - Main issues: objections of the child to return, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return - In cases in which the children's objections go farther than expressing a mere preference not to return, and in which the children's testimony is consistent and there is evidence of severe insecurity, instability and uncertainty in the environment to which they are to be returned, return may be refused under Art. 13(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, provided the children have attained the appropriate age and degree of maturity - Ordering the return of only some of the children will result in separation, which could place the returned children in an intolerable situation - Return may be refused under Art. 13(1)(b) of the Convention for all children where there is a history of repeated domestic violence, intervention of the courts and social workers, and where the children have suffered from frequent changes of residence and school; and where the care provided in the requested State is restoringing continuity to their lives and enabling them to process their trauma, such that it is in their best interests to remain there

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the child had never lost her original habitual residence in Texas.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return refused

Father was an Australian national and mother a Japanese national ― Unmarried parents met online around May 2017 ― In 2019 father briefly visited mother in Japan and she fell pregnant ― Mother moved to Australia in July 2019 to give birth to the child and cohabit with father ― Parents continuously had disagreements ― Father was verbally violent and neglectful of child ― By the time of the child’s birth, mother lost her intent to raise the child in Australia ― With father’s consent, mother took their daughter to Japan 43 days after her birth ― In December 2019, maternal grandfather told father that Mother would return to Australia with the child ― Father petitioned for return of the child to the Osaka Family Court in 2020 ― Return order made by court at first instance was appealed ― In May 2021 Osaka High Court reversed first instance decision on the basis the child’s habitual residence was in Japan not Australia ― Main issue: Habitual residence of the child.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; there was no wrongful retention as the child had acquired a habitual residence in Sweden after two years' residence there.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the Irish court held rights of custody in respect of the child and the father was allowed to rely on those rights in making a return application under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed; the removal was wrongful but the case was remitted to the Family Court in Christchurch to enable it to determine whether any of the exceptions were applicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; there had neither been a wrongful removal or retention as the child had lost his Australian habitual residence when he left that State with his mother.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The Supreme Court rejected the mother’s appeal.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

The Convention cannot be invoked if by the time of the alleged wrongful act the child is habitually resident in the requested state.

Repudiatory retention exists and involves a subjective intention on the part of the travelling parent not to return, manifested by objectively identifiable act or statement.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

The court ordered the return of the child to the USA.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful removal of two girls when they were 10 and 6 years old – Married parents – The girls lived in Spain until July 2016 – Appeal allowed, return ordered – Main issues: Removal and retention, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, objections of the child to a return, matters relating to return – There was no concluding evidence that the mother had consented to a change in the girls’ habitual residence to Argentina – There was no grave risk that returning to Spain would cause psychological or physical harm to the girls – The girls did not strongly resist against or oppose returning to Spain, they only stated a mere preference for continuing to live in Argentina – The circumstances of the case had to be taken into account and the COVID-19 health emergency context as well in order to make return immediate and safe.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Two children wrongfully retained at ages 14 and 12 – Nationals of Switzerland and Slovakia –Divorced parents – Father national of Switzerland and Slovakia – Mother national of Czech Republic – The children are under joint custody of the parents. The mother has sole care. – Children lived in Spain (until June 2021) – Application for return filed with the Courts of Switzerland on 16 September 2021 – Return ordered

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained at age 2 – Unmarried parents – Father national of Italy – Mother national of France – Italian court granted joint custody rights and decided that the child should live with the mother – Child lived in Italy until December 2015 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Italy in September 2016 - Application dismissed – Main issues: Rights of custody, habitual residence – It is up to the taking parent to prove that the left-behind parent was not exercising his rights of custody at the time of the removal or retention – It is for the authorities of the requesting State to determine the arrangements for the reception of the child upon her return

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal rejected, return ordered. The retention was considered wrongful and the mother's allegation of grave risk upon return to the United States of America was not found to be proved.