Case Law Search

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 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

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

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.

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.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Return ordered

Wrongful removal of a 12-year old child – Custody rights were exercised by the child’s aunt and her husband – The child lived in Costa Rica since he was 2 years old until February 2019 – Return ordered – Main Issues: habitual residence; rights of custody; jurisdiction issues – The habitual residence of the child is where his centre of life is, irrespective of the child’s nationality – Even though the mother had parental authority over the child, the rights of custody were exercised by the child’s aunt and her husband, and thus removal was wrongful – Return proceedings are not aimed at determining the parent’s ability to take care of and raise the child.

Non-Convention Issues

Case remitted to lower court

One child aged 12 - National of Ukraine - Unmarried parents - Father national of Ukraine - Mother national of Ukraine - Mother married British national and gained spousal visa in 2017 - Child lived in Ukraine until 2018 when mother took child to UK - Mother wrongfully retained child - Father gained return order - Mother and child returned to Ukraine in May 2019 - Mother wrongfully removed child in October 2019 and returned to UK - Father granted second return order in July 2020 - Mother made asylum application for child on 20 October 2020 and applied to stay 1980 Hague Convention proceedings on 26 October 2020 - Child granted asylum on 28 May 2021 - Court overturned return order because of the child's asylum status - Father appealed this - Main issues: art.13(1)(b), art.13(2), and asylum claim - The grant of asylum did not automatically nullify Hague proceedings - Appeal allowed and case remitted for urgent case management hearing.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return order confirmed; whilst the children objected to a return the standard required under Article 13(2) had not been reached.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed and return refused; the removal was not wrongful and the child was in any event settled in his new environment.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The mother’s complaint appeal was rejected and the order to return the children remained in place.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful but the child was found to have become settled in his new environment.

Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

Application inadmissible for lack of locus standi.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of a child when she was 4 years old - Trinidadian - Trinidadian parents – Joint custody but primary and residential custody with the mother - Child lived in the United States for 2 years and 4 months until she was removed and wrongfully retained in Trinidad as from 15 July 2017 – The return application was filed before a Trinidadian Family Court on 28 November 2017 – Appeal dismissed, return ordered - Main issues: habitual residence, removal and retention, grave risk, procedural matters – The child’s habitual residence was found to be in the U.S. because that was the mother’s place of residence and the girl had lived there for a considerable time - Removal had not been wrongful since the father had a temporary timesharing order but retention was since it breached the mother’s right of custody – The exception in Article 13(1)(b) was not granted as mere financial discomfort was not grave enough 

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Non-Convention Issues

Retention of the elder child wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions proved to the standard required under the Convention. Retention of the younger child not wrongful as she had only ever been habitually resident in England. Return ordered under common law rules.

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

Return ordered with undertakings offered

2 children wrongfully removed at ages 4 and 7– Nationals of Canada and Norway – Married parents – Father national of Norway – Mother national of Canada – Both parents had rights of custody – Children lived in Hong Kong until 21 September 2018 – Application for return filed with the courts of Ontario (Canada) at the end of January 2019 – Return ordered – Main issue: Article 13(1)(b) Grave Risk – Evidence did not meet the 13(1)(b) threshold. Court considered affidavit and legal opinion from lawyer in Hong Kong – Undertakings – Undertakings necessary to secure safe, prompt and seamless return of children and to provide for transition between return order and when children are placed before the Hong Kong courts.