Case Law Search

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the retention of the children had been wrongful, but a grave risk of harm had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 4 – Child lived in France until August 2012 – Return ordered – Main issue: habitual residence – Habitual residence should be determined in the light of all the factual circumstances particular to the case, including the parents’ shared intention and decisions taken with a view to ensure the child’s integration

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained in Japan ― National of Singapore and Japan ― Married parents ― Father national of Singapore – Mother national of Japan ― Child lived in Singapore until 2016 ― Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Singapore in 2016 ― Petition for return filed with the courts of Japan in 2017 ― Return ordered ― Main issues: acquiescence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – There is no grave risk in ordering the return of the child in cases involving domestic violence between the parents where a protection order is in place in the requesting State and where there is no evidence that any violence has been committed against the child ― It cannot be said that a parent has not actually exercised rights of custody at the time of removal if he did not know the whereabouts of the child at that time  ― A parent has not approved of or acquiesced in the retention if he filed a return application with the Central Authority of the requesting State about one month after coming to know of the removal, and with the courts of the requested State almost one year after the removal, respectively.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully removed – National of Poland and France – Married parents – Father national of France – Mother national of Poland – Both parents had custody rights over the child – Child habitually resident in France - child brought to Poland on 2 May 2017 - child brought to France on 22 May 2018 - child brought to Poland on 2 June 2018 - child brought to France on 13 February 2019– Application for return to Poland filed on 21 March 2019 – Return refused – Main issue: Art. 3 Habitual Residence – The child’s habitual residence remained in France - Father’s removal to France on 13 February 2019 was not wrongful.

Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

​​2 children allegedly wrongfully removed at age 11 and 5 – Separated parents – Both parents had parental responsibility - The mother had primary custody of the children and the father had visiting rights – Children lived in Belgium until March 2010 – Application for return filed by the public prosecutor with the District Family Court of Lille – Application dismissed at all levels – Main issues: Art 4 Age of the child (one of the children reached age of 16) & Procedural Matters (public prosecutor revoked the return application)​ 

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

Return refused

Return refused; the retention was wrongful, being in breach of the mother's rights of custody, but the child had valid objections to a return.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; waiver of custody rights not under duress; no need to determine habitual residence given no wrongful removal or retention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the child was not habitually resident in the Netherlands on the relevant date.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was wrongful but the child objected to a return and was of an appropriate age and maturity to have her views taken into account.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Rights of Access - Art. 21

Access ordered; the court recognized and enforced the American access order.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful as it was in breach of the father's actually exercised rights of custody and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate a grave risk of harm had not been met.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful as it was in breach of the father's rights of custody, and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Rights of Access - Art. 21 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed; the Family Law Regulations, which give effect to rights arising under the Hague Convention, do not accord the Australian Central Authority with the power to apply for access rights to be created.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Undertakings | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered with undertakings offered; the removal was wrongful as the child was habitually resident in the United States at the relevant date.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered.