Case Law Search

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful but the children were now settled in their new environment.

Procedural Matters

Application dismissed; no jurisdiction existed to set aside a return order under New Zealand law.

American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) | Best Interests of the Child

Guidance on the application of the Convention issued

Wrongful removal of a child when he was 2 years old - married parents – Paraguayan mother – Argentine father – the child lived in Argentina until January 2006 – return request filed before the Argentine Central Authority – return ordered – unenforced order – petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights – case referred to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights – Paraguay was found liable on the violation of the father’s rights, enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in Australia at the time of the removal and in any event there had been no breach of actually exercised rights of custody.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal rejected. Return ordered.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The exception of grave risk of danger could not apply unless the US authorities denied the mother a visa enabling her to enter and remain in the United States of America until a custody ruling.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Best Interests of the Child

Return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

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

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.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but a return to Portugal would expose the child to a grave risk of danger.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Issues Relating to Return |

Return ordered with undertakings offered

One child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 5 and a half – National of Ukraine and the United Kingdom – Father national of the United Kingdom and South Africa – Mother national of Hungary and Ukraine – Child lived in Ukraine in the mother’s custody with regular contact with the father – Following Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022 child and Mother move to England In April 2022 – Mother plans to return to Ukraine in Summer 2022 – Father obtains Prohibited Steps Order from English Court - Application for return issued on 29 July 2022 – Main issues: habitual residence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – risk of exposure to war – risk of loss of relationship with father due to alleged closure of court system and mothers hostility to father – A child’s retained roots in Ukraine support his habitual residence remains in the Ukraine – The risk faced by the child upon return to Ukraine failed to meet the threshold of ‘grave harm’ – the region was not subject to active hostility and life continued as normal – the court system was functioning – mother promoted contact – undertakings reduced any risk below grave risk threshold. – Return ordered

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 13 – National of Brazil – Divorced parents– Father national of Brazil – Mother national of Brazil – Joint right to determine the residence of the child. Father has custody. – Child lived in Brazil until 31 October 2014 – Application for return filed with the Courts of Switzerland on 28 April 2016 – Return refused – Main issue: Objections of the Child to a Return – Child was mature enough for its opinion to be taken into consideration which constituted a reason to refuse the return based on Article 13(2).

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

One child wrongfully retained at age 8 – National of Chile – Unmarried parents – Father national of Chile – Mother national of Chile – Agreement that the “cuidado personal” is solely attributed to the mother, but in fact it is exercised by both – Child lived in Chile until 14 August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 19 September 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: Rights of custody – Even though formally they agreed that the mother has the sole “cuidado personal” in fact both of the parents exercise it and therefore after the agreed date of return to Chile the retention was wrongful.

Procedural Matters

Appeal against the provisional stay of execution of the return order dismissed.

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

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

1 child allegedly wrongfully removed at age 13 – National of Canada – Divorced parents – Parents have joint custody and mother has primary care – Child lived in Arizona, USA until August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Alberta, Canada on May 18, 2018 – Application dismissed – Main issue: Art 13(1)(b) – It would be an intolerable situation to return the child to Arizona as neither parent resides there.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the applicant had failed to comply with the conditions placed on the initial return order.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

One child wrongfully retained at age 3 – National of United Kingdom and Switzerland – Married parents – Father national of United Kingdom and Turkey – Mother national of Switzerland and Turkey – Joint parental responsibility – Child lived in the United Kingdom until 7 August 2020 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 12 April 2021 – Return refused – Main issue: Acquiescence/Consent Art.13(1)(a)] –Father’s behaviour deemed acquiescence, namely signing a residence registration, bringing child’s personal effects, transferring money, signing a divorce agreement accepting Switzerland as the place of jurisdiction.

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

Return refused

3 children habitually resident in Spain ― Father Spanish national, mother Japanese national ― Parents married in 2009 in Japan ― Upon marriage, father adopted mother’s child born out of wedlock in 2006 ― Two children were born within wedlock in 2011 and 2015 ― Parents first lived together in Japan and later relocated to Spain in May 2011 ― Mother brought three children to Japan in May 2017 and notified Father of her intent to divorce and stay in Japan ― Father filed petition for the return of the children to the Tokyo Family Court in October 2018 ― Petition dismissed ― Main issue: Settlement of the children.

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

Appeal allowed and case remitted to trial court; the trial court had failed to give due consideration to the child's status as a refugee when determining the return application. Furthermore, there had been procedural failings in the conduct of the trial and the exceptions to return had not been investigated properly.