Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of the child – Separated parents – Custody rights were jointly exercised – The child lived in Spain until 11 August 2014 – The request for return was filed before the Central Authority in Spain in September 2014 – Return ordered – Main issues: habitual residence, removal and retention, settlement of the child, art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, procedural matters – The habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful removal was in Spain – There was wrongful retention in breach of the custody rights, which were exercised jointly pursuant to the agreement signed by the mother and father – The settlement of the child was not considered because the one-year period required by the Convention had not elapsed – The evidence did not contribute to determining whether there had been sexual abuse; on the contrary, a true demonstration of the risk was necessary to justify the application of article 13(1)(b) - The Central Authority of Spain was urged to take measures to protect the child and to do a follow-up on the case to provide the father with the necessary legal support.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed, return refused. The child was habitually resident in Canada.

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

Appeal by the mother (the taking parent) dismissed: the removal was wrongful and none of the grounds for exception invoked were applicable. The father's appeal was partially allowed: removal of the condition of taking protective measures.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and consent had not been established.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return refused

Child (Japanese national) born in 2017 in Japan ― Father and mother are Japanese nationals ― Parents went to the Philippines from Japan with the child in December 2017 ― Parents and child travelled back and forth due to absence of long-term visa in the Philippines ― Parents maintained properties in the Philippines and Japan, and business in Japan ― Mother removed the child from the Philippines to Japan in November 2018 ― Father filed petition in Japanese courts for the child’s return in October 2019 ― Return ordered at first instance ― Appeal allowed and return dismissed by appellate Japanese court ― Main issue: Habitual Residence.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in France and Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters | Issues Relating to Return | Best Interests of the Child

Return ordered with undertakings offered

Wrongful removal of a boy when he was 10 years old - Venezuelan – the father had exclusive custody rights  - the child lived in Venezuela until 2018 – the father requested return before the Venezuelan Central Authority in July 2020 – return ordered – main issues: removal and retention, consent, settlement of the child, grave risk, objection of the child to a return, procedural matters, issues relating to return, best interests of the child – removal was wrongful since it breached the father’s custody rights, attributed to him under the law of the State where the child was habitually resident – the father did not consent to the child’s removal – he acted towards the child’s return within a year since the wrongful removal – it was not established that the child would be exposed to a grave risk or an intolerable situation upon return to Venezuela – it was not established that the child’s fundamental rights were impaired – there was not an irreducible objection of the child against returning to the place where he was habitually resident - the Court ordered an interim exit and change of residence ban - the Court ordered the parents to collaborate with enforcement of the return order - the Court ordered to take the necessary steps for the child’s safe return

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The mother’s complaint appeal was rejected and the father’s application for the return of the child was approved. It was not possible to establish any reason to suggest that the child’s wellbeing would be endangered in the event that she were returned.

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

1 child wrongfully removed at age 2 – National of Russia – Divorced parents – Mother national of Russia – Finnish court ordered joint custody and child should live with the applicant– Child lived in Finland February 2015  – Application for return filed with the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Russia, on 6 August 2015  – Return refused on appeal to St Petersburg City Court on 3 February 2016 before application to ECtHR– Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – 23 050 EUR awarded in damages – the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Hague Convention by the St Petersburg City Court failed to secure the guarantees of Article 8 and Russia failed to comply with its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention to secure to the applicant the right to respect for his family life.

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

Return refused

1 child wrongfully retained at age 10 - National of El Salvador and Canada - Married parents - Father national of El Salvador - Mother national of Canada - Father exercised rights of custody for about 10 years, mother obtained custody in May 2012 - Child lived in El Salvador until November 2011 - Application for return filed with the Provincial Court in July 2012 - Return refused under Article 13(2) - Main issues: Art 13(1) (b) grave risk exception to return, objection of the child to return - Abuse of one parent by another can only be a relevant consideration for the Art. 13(1)(b) exception if the child is “placed in the midst of an abusive relationship” - An assessment of whether a child was placed in an intolerable situation due to the administration of corporal punishment should account for the range of generally accepted disciplining practices in the relevant social context - The factors to be taken into consideration when assessing whether a child has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of her views include: level of cognitive functioning, capacity for logical and rational reasoning and nuanced evaluation of different circumstances - Decisions not to order return under Article 13(2) should account for the policy considerations underlying the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention 

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

2 children wrongfully removed at ages 4 and 2 – Unmarried parents – Father national of Canada – Mother national of Canada and Columbia – Shared custody (parenting arrangement) – Children lived with both parents at times in the United States of America and at times in Canada – Children last lived in the United States of America from August 2010 until their removal in April 2013 - Application for return filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia in April 2013  – Return ordered – Main issues: habitual residence, Art. 13(1) (b) grave risk exception – A settled intention of the parents, for the purposes of establishing habitual residence, requires a “sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled” – Mere speculation that one of the parents might be deported on grounds of immigration status and might choose to move to a State that would allegedly endanger the children is insufficient evidence to establish that the Art. 13(1) (b) grave risk exception applies

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Case remitted to lower court

1 child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 10 - National of United States of America and Italy - Divorced parents - Joint custody - Child lived in the United States until the second half of 2015 - Application for return filed on 21 October 2015 - Return refused - Main issues: Objection of the child to return - Due weight should be given to the child’s opinion where the child is considered to have attained an appropriate age and degree of maturity, even if certain aspects of the child’s opinion are considered to be imprecise

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Leave to appeal refused and dismissal of the return application therefore confirmed; the removal was not wrongful since the child still retained his habitual residence in England at that time.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

2 children wrongfully retained at ages 11 and 8 - Nationals of Canada - Married parents - Father national of Canada - Mother national of Canada - Father transferred physical custody in a notarised letter to the mother for the period April 2013 to August 2014, to allow the children to enroll in a  Canadian school - Children lived in Germany until April 2013 - Application for return filed with the Superior Court of Justice (Family Court Branch) in June 2014 - Return ordered - Main issues: habitual residence, rights of custody, objections of the child to return - A parent cannot unilaterally change the habitual residence of a child during a time-limited period of consensual stay in another State agreed to by the other parent - Contemplation of an extension of such a period of consensual stay does not defeat its time-limited nature - Evidence of the child settling in his new environment is irrelevant if the application for return is brought within one year of the removal or retention - Where rights of custody have been transferred by one parent to another for the sole purpose of enrolling children in school in a given State, the parent who transferred those rights exercises them when the taking parent refuses to return the child, or would have exercised them but for the removal or retention - A child’s objection to return that is unsubstantial or merely expresses a preference for one place over another is insufficient grounds for refusing to order return under Art. 13(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Best Interests of the Child

Return refused

Return refused based on the elder child's objections, the fact that the children were now settled in the USA and the grave risk of harm should they be returned to Mexico.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of a 1-year-old girl – separated parents – Spanish father – Venezuelan mother – the custody rights were jointly exercised – the girl lived in Spain until July 2011 – the return request was filed before the Spanish courts on 12 July 2011 – Appeal allowed, return ordered – Main issues: removal and retention, rights of custody, grave risk, human rights, jurisdiction issues, procedural matters, best interests of the child - removal was not wrongful, but retention was, since the father did not authorise the girl’s permanent stay in Venezuela – both parents had custody rights under Spanish law – the mother did not establish the grave risk circumstances claimed – the girl’s return did not violate any Venezuelan fundamental principle on human rights protection – who is the right parent to have custody should not be discussed within return proceedings; on the contrary, this type of proceeding is concerned with whether there was a wrongful removal or retention – measures were taken to secure the safe return  of the child to Spain and the parents were encouraged to resort to mediation.

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

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the Family Division of the High Court to reconsider the habitual residence of the children.

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

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

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