Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Sweden at the time of the retention and the standard required under Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention to establish a grave risk of harm had not been met.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Article 15 declaration refused

Article 15 declaration: the removal of the child was not wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 as the father did not have rights of custody on the relevant date.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. 

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal of the child was not wrongful as it was not in breach of any legally recognised right of custody.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the grandparents did not hold rights of custody at the time of the removal of the child.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return refused

Return refused. The children were at grave risk of harm if they returned to Spain and were settled in the USA. 

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

Return refused

2 children (twins) wrongfully removed at age 3 - Nationals of Canada and the United States of America - Married parents - Father national of the United States of America - Mother national of Canada - Joint custody - Children lived in the United States of America until October 2013 - Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Manitoba on February 2014 - Return refused - Main issues: consent to removal, Art 13(1) (b) grave risk exception to return, undertakings - Consent and acquiescence, within the meaning of Art. 13(1)(a), must be given “their plain, ordinary meaning”, and evidence to establish consent or acquiescence must be “clear and cogent” - The provision by one parent of time-limited travel consent is insufficient to prove that the parent consented to the removal or retention - Exceptionally, return may be refused under Art. 13(1)(b) if there is compelling evidence of severe long-standing and escalating physical and psychological harm inflicted on the taking parent and the children

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The retention was wrongful and the exceptions raised inapplicable.

Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Case remitted to lower court

1 child wrongfully retained at age 5 – National of Croatia and Germany – Married parents– Father national of Croatia and Germany – Mother national of Croatia – Joint custody according to the German Civil Code and under Croatian law – Child lived in Germany until December2015 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Croatia on 22 March 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Croatia on 30 May 2016 - The Court granted the appeal, set aside the first instance judgment and remitted the case for a new trial to the court of first instance – Main issues: Rights of Custody, Brussels IIa Regulation –The first instance court should have applied the Brussels II a Regulation, including its requirement for return to be ordered in Art. 13(1)(b) cases in which it has been established that adequate arrangements have been made to secure the protection of the child upon his return.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention | Best Interests of the Child |

Return refused

Lawful retention of two girls - Uruguayan – Separated parents – The girls lived in Brazil until 19 April 2019, when the mother removed them to Uruguay – The mother filed a return application with the Brazilian Central Authority – Return refused – Main issues: removal and retention, consent, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, procedural matters, interpretation of the Convention, best interests of the child – There was no wrongful retention, as the mother actually removed them voluntarily to Uruguay – The mother had consented that the girls live in Uruguay by removing them to that country and delivering the necessary documents for them to resume their life there to the father – There was a grave risk due to the high emotional disturbance they suffered as a consequence of the physical, psychological and sexual violence they had suffered in Brazil – The proceedings are autonomous and specific for international child abduction cases under Uruguayan Law 18,895 – The children’s best interests in this case had been furthered by preventing them from returning to an environment of sexual, psychological and emotional abuse.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

1 child wrongfully removed at age 6 – Unmarried parents – The mother had day-to-day care of the child and the father had supervised contact – Child lived in New Zealand until May 2016 – Application for return heard at first instance in December 2016 – First appeal: application dismissed – Second appeal: return ordered – Main issues: rights of custody, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, undertakings / conditions for return – The finding that there is no ”grave risk” within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) “while at the same time foreshadowing a preparedness to impose conditions on the order for return” can be consistent - fulfilment of conditions prior to the child’s return should be feasible and cannot place the taking parent in a better situation than she was before the removal

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

Return ordered

Wrongful retention of an adolescent in Uruguay – Custody right exercised solely by the mother – The adolescent lived in Spain with his mother for 4 years – The return application was filed before the Spanish Central Authority – Return ordered – Main issues: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, objections of the child to a return, best interests of the child – The father did not prove any situation in which there was a grave risk actually making return intolerable and exposing the adolescent gravely – The adolescent voiced a preference but there was no true objection in the sense of an unwavering repudiation towards return.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal of the child was not wrongful as the rights possessed by the BJA did not amount to rights of custody. The application was therefore rejected.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful, being in breach of the father's right of custody.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as it was not in breach of any rights of custody.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) to show that the father had acquiesced had not been met.

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

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the High Court for it to exercise its discretion as to whether the child should be returned to England.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return refused

Retention wrongful but return refused; the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) had been proved to show that the father had consented to the children living in Finland.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal against return order dismissed; the removal was in breach of the father's rights of custody and therefore wrongful.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as it was not in breach of any rights of custody.