Case Law Search

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed; return ordered. The Appellate Court held that the Article 13(1)(b) exception was not established.

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

Return refused

Alleged wrongful retention of the child when he was 9 years old – National of Argentina – Unmarried parents –Argentine father – Argentine mother – The child lived in Argentina until November 2014 – The return request was filed before the Chilean court on 22 April 2016 – Return refused – Main issues: habitual residence, rights of custody, settlement of the child, art. 13(1)(b) exception of grave risk, objections of the child to a return, procedural matters - the habitual residence of the child before the removal was in Argentina – the mother had rights of custody under the Convention, and thus retention was not wrongful and the father had no standing to request the international return – over two years elapsed between the arrival of the boy in Chile and the filing of the request, and the child was already settled in – return would certainly put the child at risk of endangering his physical and psychological integrity, due to his mother and him experiencing family violence – the child openly stated his wish not to return to Argentina.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The court rejected the Beschwerde appeal against the decision and ordered the return of the children.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return refused

The Supreme Court (third instance) determined that the children’s habitual residence had changed from the United States to Denmark during the period in which the father consented to them being in Denmark (December 2010 - February 2013). By the time that the father had opposed the children's continued residence in Denmark they were habitually resident there therefore not unlawfully retained. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the retention was not wrongful and that the children should not be returned to their father in the United States.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child (UK national) removed from Singapore to Japan ― Parents married in 2010, living together mostly in Singapore and briefly in Japan ― Father Singaporean national, mother Indian national ― Divorce in 2014 ― Father provided with access right, Mother with right to primarily care for the child and freely relocate with the child to Japan ― Mother went to Japan with the child and returned to Singapore in 2014 ― Failed access, Father sought a modification of the relocation clause and the modality of access ― Mother definitively removed the child to Japan in 2015 ― Assistance of the Central Authority of Japan revoked in 2016 ― The father filed a petition for the child’s return to the Osaka Family Court in 2016 ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal dismissed and return refused by the Osaka High Court in 2016 ― Main issues: Habitual residence of the child ― Rights of custody of the father or the Singaporean court.

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

Return refused

Removal wrongful, but return refused; the oldest child had valid objections to a return to Australia and it was accepted that the siblings should not be split up; for separate reasons, linked to the father's past employment, all the children would face a grave risk of harm if returned.

Return ordered

One child wrongfully removed at age 12 – Joint parental responsibility, mother the primary carer of the child and the father had access rights – Child lived in Spain until February 2020  – Return ordered – Main issue: Article 13(1)(b), COVID-19 – the risk of physical harm presented by the pandemic – the risk of contracting COVID-19 during the return travel from the UK to Spain was not sufficient to amount to the “grave risk” of physical harm required by Art. 13(b).

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Issues Relating to Return

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and whilst the child had valid objections, the Court exercised its discretion to make a return order.

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

Appeal allowed in part; the retention was wrongful but the trial judge should have exercised his discretion to refuse the return of the eldest child in the light of her objections. As a consequence, the case was remitted to the Family Division of the High Court to determine the outcome for the three younger siblings.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Non-Convention Issues

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal allowed and return ordered, subject to undertakings; the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was not applicable, the child being habitually resident in England and Wales on the relevant date, but the Court exercising its power under the inherent jurisdiction found that it was in the child's best interests to return to Texas so a court there could adjudicate on his future.

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

Appeal dismissed and grant of interim custody to the mother upheld.

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Appeal inadmissible; the appeal did not raise a substantial legal issue.

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

Appeal allowed, case referred to the lower court. If the court in the State of refuge contemplates denying return of the child (or its enforcement) owing to a grave risk of danger, it is a prior requirement to ascertain sua sponte that the necessary protective measures to make the return possible could not be taken.

Non-Convention Issues

Legal challenge upheld. The Audiencia Provincial order was set aside and the Supreme Court ordered a new decision to be made on the child's relocation, which would assess the appropriateness of her removal to the United States of America and the attribution of contact rights in a way which was fair and equal for both the child and her parents.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

In a unanimous ruling, the Court declared the application to be admissible, and found that the national authorities had not taken all the steps which could be reasonably required to enforce the father's access rights, leading to a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Article 15 Decision or Determination

Appeal allowed and Article 15 declaration refused.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the child had retained his habitual residence in Northern Ireland during the course of his stay in Poland.

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

Appeal allowed and order made that the child should be returned to Greece.