Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal allowed and case remitted to trial court; determination to be made as to what undertakings, if any, would be sufficient to ensure the safety of the children upon their return to Mexico pending the outcome of custody proceedings.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 |

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Daughter born in 2007 and son in 2012 ― Father, mother and both children previously Sri Lankan nationals and naturalized in Japan in 2017 ― Father living in Japan since 1999 and mother since 2002 ― Parents married in 2002 ― Father principally moved to Sri Lanka with two children in July 2017, but maintained his job, home and residence registration in Japan ― Mother also travelled back and forth ― Children enrolled at school in Sri Lanka in September 2017, but went back to their elementary school in Japan during long school breaks ― Parents separated since August 2018, followed by petitions for a custody order and divorce to the Osaka Family Court ― Mother retains son since April 2019 in Japan ― Father returned to Sri Lanka with daughter in May 2019 ― Father filed petition for the son’s return to the Osaka Family Court in June 2019 ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal dismissed and return refused by the Osaka High Court in October 2019 ― Main issue: Habitual residence of the child.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Challenge rejected and return order confirmed. The removal was wrongful and the court of appeal had correctly found the Article 13(1)(b) exception to be inapplicable.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed, return refused: the removal of the children was not wrongful.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed, by a majority the Court of Appeal ruled that the child had no habitual residence on the relevant date.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Procedural Matters

Challenge upheld and decision of the Cour d'appel overruled; case remitted to the Cour d'appel of Toulouse.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Challenge to legality dismissed; the retention of the child was wrongful.

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

Return ordered

Challenge to legality dismissed; the child was habitually resident in Canada on the relevant date, therefore the retention was wrongful. None of the exceptions was established.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the children were habitually resident in Denmark on the relevant date.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions invoked was applicable.

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

Return ordered

Wrongful retention of a 4 year old child – Colombian and Salvadorian – Married parents –  Salvadorian mother – Shared rights of custody – the child lived in Colombia since birth until January 2019 – the return request was filed before the Colombian Central Authority in February 2019 – Return ordered – Main issues: habitual residence; removal and retention; art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception; procedural matters – The habitual residence of the child was in Colombia – The child was wrongfully retained, in breach of the parents’ jointly-exercised rights of custody – The grave risk the child would be exposed to was not established – Measures were ordered to ensure the child’s return to Colombia, such as his return together with his father and his preparation toward the return

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful, the child being habitually resident in Canada at the relevant date.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Challenge to legality dismissed; the retention was wrongful but the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) had been met to show that the father had consented. The return was therefore refused.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the removal of the child did not breach any rights of custody and was not therefore wrongful.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Challenge to legality dismissed; there had been no breach of custody rights. The application was therefore dismissed.

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

Challenge to legality dismissed; the child's objections satisfied the standard required under Article 13(2) of the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, granting of Article 15 declaration confirmed

Appeal dismissed - issue of Article 15 declaration confirmed; the House of Lords ruled that the order of 13 March 1996 had given the father custody rights and thereafter the retention of the child in Ireland was wrongful within the terms of Article 3.

Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the applicant father was found, in a majority verdict, not to have possessed rights of custody for the purposes of the Hague Convention at the time of the removal.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the trial court; the removal was wrongful but a determination had to be made as to whether any of the exceptions were applicable.