Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been established.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Non-Convention Issues | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal allowed; the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that English law retained a discretionary, residual basis of jurisdiction over children based on their British nationality. The case was remitted to the trial court to decide whether to exercise this jurisdiction. Were the trial court not to exercise the jurisdiction, a preliminary ruling application would be made to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to enable the Supreme Court to decide on the habitual residence of the child.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the standard required under Article 13(2) had been met.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, return ordered with undertakings offered

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

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the children would face an intolerable situation had not been met.

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

Return ordered with undertakings offered

Return ordered; the standard required under Articles 13(1)(b) and 13(2) had not been met.

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

Challenge to legality dismissed; the standard required to show the child would face a grave risk of psychological harm under Article 13(1)(b) had been met and the return was therefore refused.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the boys were habitually resident in the United States at the relevant time and none of the exceptions had been made out.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the breach of custody rights vested in the English court was sufficient to make the removal of the child wrongful.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the High Court exercised its discretion under Article 13 not to order the return of the children; grave risk of an intolerable situation and objections of the elder child both being established.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal allowed and return ordered, subject to undertakings; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been met and the Court of Appeal ordered the return of the child subject to undertakings by the applicant father.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was not wrongful for the child was not habitually resident in Ontario on the relevant date.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the standard required under Article 13(2) had been met.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the trial judge had been justified in finding that the standard required under 13(2) had not been met.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the father had been actually exercising his custody rights and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been met.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return | Interpretation of the Convention

Return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention of the girls against the wishes of the father was wrongful and the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been met.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the role played by the grandparents in the care of the child was sufficient to vest them with custody rights. These rights were breached when the mother removed the child.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the Court of Appeal found that there had been a wrongful removal but exercised its discretion under Article 13(1)(b) not to order the return of the child.

Article 15 Decision or Determination

Appeal dismissed, granting of Article 15 declaration confirmed

Appeal dismissed and granting of Article 15 declaration confirmed; the 1992 residence order allowing the mother to relocate to California no longer having any effect.