Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; the retention was wrongful and the grounds for exception under the Convention were not applicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; there was no retention of the child.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in the United States.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the children were habitually resident in the United States of America at the date of the alleged wrongful retention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the exceptions in art. 13 CLaH 80 did not apply.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The mother’s complaint appeal (Beschwerde) was rejected and the order for return was maintained with the specification that the child was to be returned to Spain but not necessarily to Madrid.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered, with the father ordered to pay the costs of return; the child was habitually resident in Turkey at the time of her removal and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful and the child's objections were rejected as she was not sufficiently mature and had been unduly influenced by her mother.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the child's habitual residence was in Denmark at the relevant date.

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

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.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Two children retained in Japan ― United States nationals born in 2009 and 2012 ― Married parents living in the United States ― Father and mother nationals of the United States ― Father and children travelled to Japan from November 2018 and resided there from 2019 ― Mother visited father and children in Japan several times but did not relocate there ― Mother and fathers’ relationship deteriorated and father retained children in Japan from November 2019 ― Father instituted in-court conciliation to obtain sole custody before the Japanese courts in January 2020 ― Mother sought return of the children in the Japanese courts in February 2020 ― Japanese courts dismissed the claim as children were habitually resident in Japan ― Habitual residence determined on the grounds of the children’s close connection and integration into their social and family environment ― Limited role of the parents’ intentions in determining habitual residence ― Main issue: Habitual residence.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Child born in 2014 in Singapore ― Parents married in 2008 ― Nationality of the entire family is unknown ― The family travelled abroad in August 2017 ― On the evening of 30 August 2017 in Japan, father drank and exercised physical violence against the mother ― Father arrested and criminal proceedings instituted ― Parents reached a settlement on 15 September 2017 ― Parents agreed that they would live separately ― The mother would live in Japan with the child as the primary caregiver, whereas the father would pay damages and maintenance and have visitation with the child ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to Singapore in the Tokyo Family Court in December 2017 ― Application dismissed ― Appeal dismissed by the Tokyo High Court in May 2018 ― Main issues: consent and grave risk.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed, the child was habitually resident in Canada. 

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the objections of the child were of sufficient strength to activate the Article 13(2) exception.

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

Appeal allowed; case remitted to the Court of first instance for it to decide on the matter of the child's habitual residence at the time of the removal.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and non-return order confirmed; the boy objected to a return and the standard required under Article 13(2) had been reached.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal allowed and return ordered subject to undertakings. The removal was wrongful and any potential harm to the child from a return could be minimized by the father's compliance with the conditions set and the child could otherwise be protected by the English authorities.

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

Appeal dismissed and child's application for leave to intervene in the Convention proceedings refused.