Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Removal wrongful and return ordered; Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully retained in France – Separated parents – Mother given primary custody and the father had visiting rights – Child lived in Ukraine until October 2014 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Ukraine by the father on 18 November 2014 – Case referred by the public prosecutor of Nanterre to the District Court of Nanterre on 24 May 2016 – Appeal granted by the Supreme Court, return refused – Main issue: Art 12(2) – The child has settled in her new environment, within the meaning of Article 12(2) of the 1980 Convention, leading to the dismissal of the return request

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Case remitted to lower court

1 child wrongfully removed at age 4 – Both parents have custody rights – Child lived in Ukraine until June 28, 2015 – Application for return filed by the public prosecutor with the court of France on August 8, 2016 – Application granted – Main issue: Art. 3 Rights of custody – A parent may have custody rights within the meaning of the 1980 Convention even if the child does not live with that parent.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Case remitted to lower court

​​1 child wrongfully removed at 2 years old – Married parents – Both parents had custody rights over the child – Divorce proceedings initiated by the mother – Child lived in Mexico until 13 January 2012 – Appeal before the Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) – Appeal granted – Main issue: Articles 3 & 5 – The father had rights of custody over the child under Mexican law, and within the meaning of the 1980 Convention, making the child’s removal wrongful.  ​ 

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.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had been proved to the standards required.

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Return ordered

Return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful as the child was habitually resident in Ireland on the relevant date.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention. The Australian authorities were in a position to provide for the well-being of the children, if that was required.

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.

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.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Article 15 declaration refused

Article 15 declaration refused; no rights of custody had been breached when the children were removed.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the applicant father did not have rights of custody.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the removal of the boys was wrongful insofar as it breached an implied right under New York law that access rights not be frustrated by the unilateral relocation of a child.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; there had neither been a wrongful removal nor a wrongful retention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the role played by the unmarried father in the care of the child was sufficient to vest him with custody rights. These rights were breached when the child was fraudulently taken to Wales.

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

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the removal of the children breached rights of custody vested in the English court seized of the pending custody proceedings.