Case Law Search

Issues Relating to Return

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Legal challenge rejected; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions was applicable.

Non-Convention Issues

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the Court of Appeal had been wrong to interfere with the trial judge's exercise of discretion, although the trial judge, influenced by recent appellate authority, had himself applied too strict a test in evaluating whether or not to make a return order. The House of Lords clarified the approach to be adopted with regard to non-Hague Convention child abduction cases.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return order refused; removal wrongful but the children had become settled in their new environment and objected to a return, with the Court exercising its discretion not to make a return order.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was wrongful but Articles 13(1)(b) and 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention. The return was therefore refused.

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

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was wrongful and Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused. The removal was wrongful but more than 12 months had elapsed prior to the issue of proceedings and further to Article 12(2) the children were now settled in their new environment.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; Article 13(2) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed and enforcement of return order ordered.

Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed and the order to return the children to the United States is to be enforced.

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

Appeal allowed in part; the removal was not wrongful, the order denying return was upheld; however, the ruling was amended in that it ordered the father to indemnify the mother.

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.

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.

Issues Relating to Return

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

The parents and the children resided in France ― After the parents’ separation, the father removed two children from France to Japan ― Osaka Family Court ordered the return of the children to France on 11 September 2020, which became final and conclusive on 9 December 2020 ― Divorce decree rendered in France on 23 November 2020 ordered joint custody of the parents and the children to reside with the father in Japan, while only granting visitation right to the mother ― The Osaka Family Court granted the mother’s claim for indirect compulsory execution on 1 February 2021 ― The Osaka High Court reversed the decision and dismissed the mother’s claim to honor the French custody decision on 14 April 2021 ― The Supreme Court upheld the decision on the grounds that the mother’s claim for indirect compulsory execution became unlawful after the children returned to France as a result of compulsory execution by substitute ― Two justices concurred and opined that the lower court decision may conflict with Art. 17 of the 1980 Convention  Main issue: Admissibility of indirect compulsory execution that runs counter to a foreign custody order.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful removal of a seven-month-old child – U.S. national – Married parents – Father a U.S. citizen – Mother a Brazilian citizen – Shared rights of custody – Child lived in the United States from birth until May 2021 – Return application submitted to the Central Authority in the United States in September 2021 – Appeal allowed, return ordered – Key issues: habitual residence, rights of custody, settlement of the child, grave risk exception – The child’s habitual residence was in the United States – Custody matters must be resolved by the courts of the State of the child’s habitual residence – The father filed the return application within one year of the wrongful retention – The Court held that the allegations of domestic violence were not substantiated, and that neither the child’s separation from the taking parent nor the immigration obstacles faced by the mother were sufficient to establish the grave risk exception.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return refused

Return refused, the child was now well-settled in the US.