Case Law Search

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return refused

Retention wrongful but return refused; the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) had been proved to show that the father had consented to the children living in Finland.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal against return order dismissed; the removal was in breach of the father's rights of custody and therefore wrongful.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as it was not in breach of any rights of custody.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed: the trial judges had not considered whether, under Article 3, the children had acquired a habitual residence in Australia.

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

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the removal did not breach any rights of custody.

Procedural Matters

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; decision of the trial court, that the standard required by Article 13(2) had not been met, restored.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court decision and ordered the return of the child.

Appeal dismissed, return refused

The court considered the jurisprudence on habitual residence and upheld the finding of the first instance judge: that the child’s residence in the USA had not acquired the necessary degree of stability to become habitual.  On the established principles, there was no basis to interfere with the judge’s finding.

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 | 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.