Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the children were no longer habitually resident in Australia on the relevant date.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

One child (Russian national) born in 2014 resided in Russia ― Father and mother Russian nationals ― Parents married in 2014 in Russia ― Parents divorced in 2016 ― Mother took the child to Japan in October 2017 and settled there following her remarriage ― A ne exeat order of the Russian court was partly set aside by confirming the child’s temporary residence in Japan in January 2019 ― Central Authority of Japan assisted the Father with a return application in July 2018 ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to the Tokyo Family Court in October 2018 ― Return ordered ― Appeal dismissed by the Tokyo High Court in February 2019 ― Main issues: rights of custody and grave risk.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

One child wrongfully retained at age 3 - Dual British-American national - Parents married in 2018 but separated in 2023 -  Father American national - Mother British national - Family lived in Texas, USA until mother wrongfully retained child in UK in February 2023 - Father applied for return in England on 22 June 2023 - Return ordered by consent - Mother appealed this based on a lack of consent and absence of protective measures in light of alleged abuse - Main issues: grave risk (Article 13(1)(b) and protective measures; Lack of proper consent - Court found the protective measures were ineffective and not enforceable in Texas, and absence of agreement - Appeal allowed, return refused, and case remitted to lower court.

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

Appeal allowed and return ordered; Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered.

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

Case remitted to lower court

Three children wrongfully removed aged 4, nearly 3, and 19 months - All children born in Spain - Unmarried parents - Father national of Morocco - Mother national of UK - Children placed in foster care by Spanish authorities in September 2020 - Children returned to their parents in April 2021 - Children lived in Spain until the mother wrongfully removed them to England on 23 August 2021 - Application for return filed with the Central Authority of England and Wales on 25 February 2022 by the father - Return ordered - Mother appealed under art.13(1)(a) and (b) - Appeal allowed, case remitted - Main issues: first instance judge should have heard oral evidence on the issue of consent and should have considered allegations under art.13(1)(b) collectively, not independently

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Rights of Access - Art. 21 | Non-Convention Issues

Application accepted and new access order issued.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful but the children validly objected to their return.

Non-Convention Issues

Return ordered

Return ordered, subject to the prior payment by the father of travel expenses and reasonable maintenance in Japan for the duration of the proceedings.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed and case remitted to a different judge of the Ontario Court of Justice to re-determine the Article 13(1)(b) issues.

Rights of Access - Art. 21

Application allowed and new access order issued.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return refused

Abduction of a 13-year-old girl – the child had lived in Nicaragua for ten years under the care of her maternal family – the return request was filed before Nicaraguan courts in April 2019 – return denied – key issues: habitual residence; Article 13(2) – the child’s habitual residence was found to be in Nicaragua as it was where she had developed her center of life, personal and cultural identity, and sense of belonging, stability, and security – the court determined that the child’s statements during the hearing constituted an objection to return according to Art. 13(2) of the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Two children wrongfully retained at ages 14 and 12 – Nationals of Switzerland and Slovakia –Divorced parents – Father national of Switzerland and Slovakia – Mother national of Czech Republic – The children are under joint custody of the parents. The mother has sole care. – Children lived in Spain (until June 2021) – Application for return filed with the Courts of Switzerland on 16 September 2021 – Return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed by a majority ruling; the child was not habitually resident in the United States at the time of the removal.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | 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.

Issues Relating to Return

Case remitted to lower court

Child born in 2006 in Russia ― Father a Russian national, mother a Japanese national ― Married parents living in Moscow from 2007 and later divorced ― Mother retained the child aged nine years in Japan in August 2016 ― Father filed petition for the child’s return in Japanese courts in November 2016 ― Parents agreed on the child’s return, child support and access etc. in conciliation ― Child refused to return ― Father further sought a habeas corpus order ― Parents concluded a judicial settlement ― Mother petitioned for annulment of the return clause reached in conciliation ― Main issue: procedural issues, modification of a return clause made in conciliation.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Article 15 Decision or Determination | Rights of Access - Art. 21

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful for it had not led to the breach of any rights of custody.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of a 5-year-old boy – Peruvian and American – Married parents –The child lived in Peru until September 2014, then the family changed its place of habitual residence to the United States – The mother filed a return request before the Peruvian courts on 24 August 2016 – Return ordered – Main issues: Habitual Residence; Removal and Retention; Settlement of the Child; Objections of the Child to a Return – The habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful retention was in the United States – The mother had rights of custody over the child under the custody and visitation agreement approved by the U.S. court – The wrongful retention occurred because the father did not return with the child by the date established in the travel authorisation issued by the mother – The child was gradually detaching from the mother because of the father’s actions.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application dismissed: all allegations presented by the father were ill-founded.

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

Return refused

One child wrongfully retained at age 4 – National of Germany - Married parents – Father national of Germany – Mother national of Georgia – Both parents have joint custody under Section 1626 of the German Civil Code – Child lived in Germany until August 2009 – Application for return was filed at the Central Authority of Georgia on 29 December 2009 – Return refused  – Main issue: Article 13(1)(b): The court considered that in case of return the child would not live in a psychologically stable environment – The applicant did not appeal the decision and it became final.