Case Law Search

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.

Procedural Matters

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed insofar as it was admissible. In particular, the mother had failed to prove the existence of acquiescence or a grave risk of danger.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Case remitted to lower court

Wrongful retention of a child when she was 5 years old - US national - parents married - father US national - mother Colombian national - both parents had custody rights under the Convention - child lived in the US until 19 December 2015 - return application was filed before the US Central Authority on 13 June 2016 - lower court was ordered to make a new judgment in the international return proceedings, taking into account the child's views - main issues: aims of the Convention - Preamble, settlement of the child, acquiescense, art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, child's objections to return – the best interests of the child is to be returned to his or her center of life without delay, unless one of the grounds of exception is proven - assessment of the child's settlement is appropriate only if one year has elapsed between the wrongful conduct and the date of filing of the international return application - the grave risk must be greater than the natural hardship that may result from a change of his or her residence or the dislocation of the current living group - the decision on the application of the exception of Art. 13(2) requires consideration of the voice of the child who is of sufficient age and maturity.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The retention was considered wrongful. The appeal was considered unfounded and lacking any legal basis since the mother had not demonstrated the existence of substantive or procedural errors which would have served as a basis to overturn the decision that ordered the return.