Case Law Search

Rights of Access - Art. 21

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the court did not have jurisdiction to consider a request for access rights as a remedy to a wrongful retention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 |

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child (Australian and Japanese national) resided in Australia and Japan ― Father Australian national, mother Japanese national ― Parents married in 2013 in Australia ― Parents lived together in Japan from November 2013 until June 2014, until the father returned to Australia ― Mother joined Father in Australia from September 2014 until October 2015, with a written agreement to reside there only up to two years ― Mother returned to Japan with the child in October 2015 ― Father visited them in Japan from mid-December 2015 until mid-January 2016 ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to the Osaka Family Court in March 2016 ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal dismissed and return refused by the Osaka High Court in 2017 ― Main issue: Habitual residence of the child.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

The ECrtHR fount there had been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR. The arguments provided to the District Court fell short of the requirements of Article 13(1)(b).

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

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

Two children wrongfully removed at approximately ages 1 and 2 years old – Nationals of Hungary and Italy – Married parents – Father national of Italy – Mother national of Hungary – Shared parental authority – Children lived in Italy until June 2004 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Italy on 3 March 2005 – Return ordered before application to ECtHR on 16 January 2013 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 3,000 awarded in damages to father and EUR 3,000 awarded in damages to children – The failure to enforce the return order without any explanation or justification, which prevented the father and children from being reunited or seeing each other occassionaly for over seven years, amounted to a violation of the father's and children's right to family life

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed, return denied. The girls had developed significant relations in Costa Rica (at school, with their family and social network) so return could imply serious consequences for the children. A return would, therefore, be contrary to the children's best interests, to Article 51 of the Political Constitution of Costa Rica and Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989. The Court also ruled that the exception to return in Article 20 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was applicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered

The Court refused to order the return of the child. The child was found to be settled in the United States within the meaning of Article 12(2). Though he and his mother did not have permanent legal status in the US, they did have a legal status and a pending asylum application.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Best Interests of the Child

Return refused

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.

Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children

Return refused

Wrongful removal of three girls when they were 15, 10 and 7 years old - Paraguayan – married parents – Paraguayan father – Paraguayan mother – the girls lived in Paraguay until October 2018 – the return request was filed before the Paraguayan Central Authority – return refused – main issues: grave risk, human rights, procedural matters, best interest of the child – returned exposed the girls to a true risk of suffering psychological and physical harm, since they were victims of their father’s violence, as well as their mother was – return would amount to a violation of their dignity due to the violence exerted by their father – considering that the mother had returned to Paraguay, the maternal grandmother was given provisional care for a 90-day period until the girls returned to Paraguay with their mother

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Return refused; the retention was not wrongful.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Unlawful retention of a one-year-old child – Argentine national – Married parents – Father was an Argentine national – Mother was a Uruguayan national – Both parents held custodial rights – The child lived in Argentina until July 2015 – The restitution request was submitted to the Argentine Central Authority – Appeal granted, return ordered – Key issues: Article 3 (habitual residence), Articles 3 and 12 (removal and retention), Article 13(1)(b) (grave risk exception) – The child's habitual residence was Argentina – The retention was deemed unlawful as the mother lacked the other parent’s consent – No grave risk was established, as Argentina had judicial mechanisms to protect the mother and child.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as there was no express agreement that the child would return to the United States of America on 29 December 2012.

Remanded; the district court failed to explain its application of the Convention and Canadian law. The District Court was ordered to explicitly apply the relevant portions of the Convention and make findings of fact explaining its application.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Best Interests of the Child | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Non-Convention Issues

Application dismissed; the children had lost their habitual residence in the United Kingdom - England & Wales, therefore the English courts were no longer competent to adjudicate in respect of them.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Article 15 Decision or Determination | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal allowed and it was ordered that the proceedings be transferred to France in accordance with Article 15 of the Brussels II a Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003).

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.

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

Appeal allowed and case remitted to a different judge of the Family Division of the High Court for re-hearing; the trial judge had erred in the manner in which she had approached her interview with the child, for she had engaged in evidence gathering and then relied upon that evidence in ordering the return of the child.