Case Law Search

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Non-Convention Issues

Recognition of the custody and access orders was upheld.

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

Return ordered

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return refused

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the Unified Family Court to determine whether the child was now settled in its new environment.

Return ordered

One child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 1 –Married parents – Father national of Israel – Mother national of Israel – Child lived in USA until 2019 – Application for return filed with the Tel Aviv Family Court of Israel on 20 February 2020 – Return ordered – Main issue: Article 13(1)(b) – COVID-19 did not amount to a grave risk of harm to the child, in fact the medical care for the child may be better in the USA than in Israel as they had medical coverage there.

Issues Relating to Return | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The court rejected the mother’s application to have the use of direct force in enforcement suspended.

Issues Relating to Return

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The court ordered that the mother be placed in coercive detention for 10 days.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

4 children wrongfully removed - Nationals of the Netherlands - Married parents - Father and mother nationals of the Netherlands - Order of 22 November 2017 granted a certified authority ("gecertificeerde autoriteit") temporary custody pending the execution of a return order (if any); parents initially had joint custudy  - Children lived in an unidentified State until 14 June 2017 - Return refused - Main issues: objections of the child to return, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return - In cases in which the children's objections go farther than expressing a mere preference not to return, and in which the children's testimony is consistent and there is evidence of severe insecurity, instability and uncertainty in the environment to which they are to be returned, return may be refused under Art. 13(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, provided the children have attained the appropriate age and degree of maturity - Ordering the return of only some of the children will result in separation, which could place the returned children in an intolerable situation - Return may be refused under Art. 13(1)(b) of the Convention for all children where there is a history of repeated domestic violence, intervention of the courts and social workers, and where the children have suffered from frequent changes of residence and school; and where the care provided in the requested State is restoringing continuity to their lives and enabling them to process their trauma, such that it is in their best interests to remain there

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at 4 years  – National of Spain and the United States of America – Married parents – Father national of Spain – Mother national of United States of America – The mother and father had joint custody – Child lived in Turkey until April 2014 (first removal) and April 2015 (second removal)  – Application for return filed with the courts of the United States of America (federal jurisdiction) – Return ordered – Main issue(s): Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – an “intolerable situation” can include circumstances where there is conclusive evidence that courts of the State of habitual residence are practically or legally unable to adjudicate custody

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

This is the first and so far the only Supreme Court decision which modified a final and binding return order due to a change in circumstances under the Hague Convention Implementation Act. It is seen as a highly exceptional case.

4 children (2 sets of twins) wrongfully retained in Japan ― Children lived in the United States until July 2014, when the elder twins were 11 years and 7 months old and the younger twins 6 years and 5 months old ― Married parents ― Father national of the United States ― Mother national of Japan ― Order for the return of all children became final and binding in January 2016 ― The Supreme Court upheld the Osaka High Court decision modifying the return order due to change in circumstances and dismissed the petition for the return of the children ― Main issues: Grounds for refusal of a return order ― The elder twins’ objection to being returned ― A grave risk of placing the younger twins in an intolerable situation by separating them from their siblings 

Interpretation of the Convention | Human Rights - Art. 20

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Where a grant of asylum has been made by the Home Secretary it is impossible for the court later to order a return of the subject child under the 1980 Hague Convention. Equally, it is impossible for a return order to be made while an asylum claim is pending (including pending an appeal). Such an order would be in direct breach of the principle of non-refoulement.

The court ordered that the children be returned to Israel, but that this order should not take effect until 15 days after the promulgation by the First-tier Tribunal of its decision on the appeal by the mother and the children against the refusal of the grant of asylum by the Home Secretary. If the First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal then the return order would be stayed. If the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, then the return would be implemented, unless the mother wished to appeal on a point of law, in which case the court would appraise the strength or otherwise of the grounds of appeal. 

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained at age 6 – Married parents – Father national of France, Italy and Lebanon – Mother national of Spain and Uruguay – Joint custody – Child lived in France until July 2018  – Application for return filed with the US District Court in Washington in June 2019 – Return ordered – Main issue(s): Article 3 - wrongful retention before the expected date of return.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The Supreme Court rejected the mother’s appeal.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

1 child wrongfully retained at age 2 – Married parents – Father national of Argentina – Mother national of Romania and Argentina – Joint custody – Child lived in Argentina until September 2006 and in Cyprus (for a UN mission) until March 2007 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Argentina on 4 December 2007 – Return ordered, subsequently quashed at extraordinary appeal before application to ECtHR on 21 December 2009 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 7,500 awarded in damages – The lack of expeditious enforcement of the final return order and the subsequent decision to quash this order in the extraordinary appeal, on the basis of irrelevant, unjustified and insufficient reasons, formed a violation of Article 8 

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

2 children wrongfully removed (aged 5 and 8 at the time of the decision) – Nationals of Brazil and Argentina – Divorced parents – Father national of Argentina, Venezuela, and Brazil – Mother national of Argentina – By a homologated conciliation agreement of 5 June 2014, the father had custody for a period of four months and thereafter the parents were to have joint custody – Children lived in Brazil until July 2014 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Brazil in October 2014 – A decision or determination under Art. 15 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was obtained - Application dismissed – Main issues: custody rights and acquiescence – “Rights of custody” has an autonomous meaning under the Convention, which crucially includes the right to determine the child’s place of residence – This right may be attributed to a parent by the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal, as well as by the context, structure and content of an agreement on custody homologated in that State – “Acquiescence is a question of the actual subjective intention of the wronged parent, and not of the outside world’s perception of her intentions”

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

The Convention cannot be invoked if by the time of the alleged wrongful act the child is habitually resident in the requested state.

Repudiatory retention exists and involves a subjective intention on the part of the travelling parent not to return, manifested by objectively identifiable act or statement.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

1 child wrongfully retained at age 2 – Married parents – Father national of Poland – Mother national of Poland – Parental responsibility was exercised jointly by both parents – Child lived in the United Kingdom  – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of the United Kingdom on 21 September 2012 – Return refused before application to ECtHR on 12 April 2014 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 9,000 awarded in damages – The reasoning of the domestic courts regarding the Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Child Abduction Hague Convention exception in light of Article 8 ECHR was misguided; none of the arguments objectively ruled out the possibility of the mother's return with the child