Case Law Search

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed; return refused.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

4 children wrongfully removed to Japan ― Parents married in 2001 and living in the United States ― Father and mother nationals of Japan ― 5 children ― The parents separated and had been living apart since 2011 ― The mother obtained a restraining order against the father for the third time in 2012, along with a provisional custody order over the 5 children ― The father removed 4 of their 5 children via Canada to Japan in 2014 ― The parents obtained a divorce decree in the United States in 2014, which declared the mother as the sole custodian ― The mother filed an application for return with the courts of Japan in 2014 ― The Tokyo Family Court ordered return ― The father filed an appeal ― Main issues: No objections of the children ― No grave risk in ordering return of the child.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful as the child was habitually resident in Australia at the relevant time, and none of the exceptions had been proved.

Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Preliminary ruling issued.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Case remitted to lower court

The case was remanded to the district court to determine whether, in the exercise of its equitable discretion, a return to Brazil is still appropriate despite the child’s "settled" status.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return refused. The removal was wrongful but the exceptions in Articles 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) and 13(2) had been made out to the standard required under the Convention. In addition the father's lack of good faith barred him from receiving the court's assistance.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child removed to Japan ― National of Algeria and Japan ― Married parents ― Father an Algerian national, Mother a Japanese national ― Parents married in France in 1998 ― Child born in 2004 and lived in France until 2015 ― Mother removed and has retained the child in Japan ― Petition for return of the child filed with the Osaka Family Court ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal to the Osaka High Court dismissed ― Main issues: Father’s Consent or Acquiescence ― Grave Risk for the Child ― Child’s objection

Appeal dismissed and return order allowed to stand; the retention was wrongful and none of the Article 13 exceptions had been proved.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful as the child was habitually resident in Ireland on the relevant date.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the removal was wrongful however it was determined that the child had become settled in her new environment in accordance with Article 12(2).

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful as the child retained his habitual residence in Israel on the relevant date.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful and neither Article 13(1)(b) nor Article 13(2) had been proven to the standard required.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the child was not habitually resident in the Netherlands on the relevant date.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention. The Australian authorities were in a position to provide for the well-being of the children, if that was required.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child had not acquired a habitual residence in the other Contracting State at the date of the alleged wrongful retention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, following an alternative construction of the concept of habitual residence by the Court of Appeals, the case was remitted to the District Court for it to determine whether the United States had supplanted Israel as the locus of the children's family and social development.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed; the removal was wrongful but the case was remitted to the Family Court in Christchurch to enable it to determine whether any of the exceptions were applicable.

Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed; however the application for residence was dismissed on the merits.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the child was habitually resident in the United States on the relevant date.

Human Rights - Art. 20

Application dismissed; the Convention conforms with the German Constitution and does not infringe any basic rights.