Case Law Search

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).

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

Return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal to Panama was considered wrongful and the grave risk exception of Article 13(1)(b) raised by the mother was not established.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. 

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Application dismissed. Return refused as there would be a grave risk of harm to the child if he was returned to Germany.

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

Return ordered

The court ordered the return of the child to the USA.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the child's objections did not satisfy the standard required under Article 13(2) of the Convention.

Procedural Matters

"Amparo" granted by the Constitutional Court which mandated the Court of Appeals to decide on the merits of the appeal.

Issues Relating to Return

Application dismissed

Application dismissed because ill-founded; the Czech authorities had not breached Article 8 of the ECHR.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed. The removal was wrongful and the exceptions of the Convention inapplicable.

Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Wrongful retention of a 1-year-old boy – Costa Rican – unmarried parents – Nicaraguan father – Dominican mother – Joint custody rights – The boy lived in Costa Rica until January 2018 – The return request was filed before a Nicaraguan court in January 2019 – Return ordered – Main issues: procedural matters – The parents agreed that the child would return to Costa Rica in the company of his father once the latter was assured that he would not be criminally sanctioned for child abduction.

Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; Article 20 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was not engaged by the facts of the case.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Sweden at the time of the retention and the standard required under Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention to establish a grave risk of harm had not been met.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Legal Doctrine

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return upheld. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions raised was applicable.

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

Application allowed and independent children's lawyer appointed.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Article 15 declaration refused

Article 15 declaration: the removal of the child was not wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 as the father did not have rights of custody on the relevant date.

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

Legal challenge dismissed and decision refusing to return the child to Germany confirmed. The removal had been wrongful but Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.