Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Lawful removal of a 2-year-old girl – Argentine national – Married parents – American father – Argentine mother – The girl lived in Argentina until April 2017, when her family travelled to the United States. She stayed there and then returned to Argentina in September that same year – The father requested her return before the Argentine courts – Appeal dismissed, return refused – Main Issues: habitual residence, removal and retention – The habitual residence of the girl was in Argentina because she had created no stable or permanent bonds in the United States that allowed for a determination that her place of living was there – The removal was lawful since it had been authorised by court in accordance with Argentine law.

Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had been proved.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the Court of Appeal ruled that the objections of the two older children should not have led to an order for their non-return. A majority found that the trial judge had erred in the manner in which he exercised his discretion once he had found the Article 13(2) exception to have been made out.

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

Return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; this was an exceptional case where the standard of harm envisaged within Article 13(1)(b) had been reached.

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

In a unanimous ruling the Court held that Croatia had breached Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to make adequate and effective efforts to reunite the applicant with her son. The Court also made an award of compensation to the mother under Article 41 of the ECHR.

Return refused

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the child was habitually resident in Ontario and his retention was in breach of the mother's rights of custody.

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

Return refused

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

Return refused

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Human Rights - Art. 20

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

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

Return refused

Return refused; the applicant father was found to have consented to the child living in South Africa permanently and the child would face a grave risk of harm if returned to the applicant.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the District Court; the trial court had erred in its legal interpretation of the concept of habitual residence.

Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; under Australian law an individual had no standing to make a return application. Permission was nevertheless granted for a new application to be made by the Commonwealth Central Authority.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in another Contracting State at the date of the retention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeals dismissed and return ordered; the step-sister's application for contact with her wrongfully removed half sibling had to await the outcome of the Convention proceedings, and, the Commonwealth Central Authority was not estopped from bringing a separate return application.