Case Law Search

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the girls had lost their New Zealand habitual residence at the time of the alleged retention. Consequently there could be no wrongful retention.

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

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the majority held that the agreement that mother and child could return to Scotland if the relationship failed remained in existence, therefore the father was regarded as having consented to the removal.

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

Appeal allowed; the retention was wrongful as the child had been habitually resident in Australia at the relevant date. The case was remitted to the District Court to rule on whether any of the exceptions might apply.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal of the child was wrongful and none of the exceptions was applicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the father had acquiesced in the retention of the children.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; there had been a wrongful retention and none of the exceptions had been established.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; there had been a wrongful removal and there was insufficient evidence to indicate consent on the part of the applicant mother.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful, the children being habitually resident in England in April 1995.

Return refused

Return refused; the father had waived his Convention rights when he dismissed the substantive proceedings brought in the State of the child's habitual residence.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in Spain at the relevant date. The child was not wrongfully retained in Ohio, as the United States had become the child's habitual residence.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate the child would face a grave risk of psychological harm had not been met.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court finding that no custody rights had been breached and that consequently there had not been a wrongful removal.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the standard required under Articles 13(1)(b) and 20 had not been met.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return refused

Return refused; the child was no longer habitually resident in Germany at the relevant date.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Return refused

Return refused; the retention of the child was not wrongful since at the moment of retention the child had acquired a habitual residence in Massachusetts.

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

Return ordered

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Article 15 declaration refused

Article 15 declaration refused; the removal was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.

Article 15 Decision or Determination | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Article 15 declaration refused

Article 15 declaration refused; the removal was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Article 15 Decision or Determination

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the removal was wrongful having breached rights of custody held by the father.

Procedural Matters

The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and awarded damages to both mother and child.