Case Law Search

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

Return ordered

Return ordered. The children’s habitual residence was in the USA and the Father failed to make out the Article 13(1)(b) exception to return. 

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

Return ordered

Return ordered. The Article 13(1)(b) exception was not made out and, though the children objected to returning to Ireland, the Judge did not exercise his discretion to order a return. To do so would be inappropriate given that the situation was caused by the mother’s wrongful conduct in removing the children. 

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return refused

Return refused. The impact of a return on the Mother’s mental health would place the children in an intolerable situation.

Issues Relating to Return

Application to appeal dismissed and return order upheld. The prior return of the child rendered an appeal moot.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Issues Relating to Return

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered to a Member State other than the State of the child's habitual residence; none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The Hague Convention, as complemented by the Brussels II a Regulation imposed the return of the children to Spain, considering that adequate protection measures had been taken.

Issues Relating to Return

Breach of Article 8 of the ECHR and award of damages. The Portuguese authorities had failed to take sufficient or adequate measures to ensure respect for the father's right to have his son returned.

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.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and the exception asserted inapplicable.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed; the child had not had a habitual residence in Greece.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Non-Convention Issues

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed. The Court set aside the order for return and dismissed the father’s application under the 1980 Hague Convention.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return ordered

Return ordered. The child was not settled in the UK, within the meaning of Article 12(2), nor was there a grave risk of harm to the child on return to Portugal within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b).

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

Appeal allowed and Article 15 declaration refused.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered. No grave risk of harm was established and even if there had been one, protective measures were sufficient to ameliorate the risk. Though the child objected, discretion should be exercised so as to override this objection.

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

Case remitted to lower court

Appeal allowed and case remitted for a further hearing.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

2 children wrongfully removed at ages 3 and 2 - Nationals of Switzerland and the United Kingdom - Divorced parents - Father national of the United Kingdom - Mother national of Switzerland - Joint rights of custody; the father had supervised access rights while the mother effectively exercised custody - Repeated incidents of domestic violence were known to the social services - Children lived in the United Kingdom (England and Wales) until 25 March 2016 - Application for return filed with the first instance court in Switzerland on 5 September 2016 - Return ordered - Main issues: exceptions to ordering return - The exceptions to return should be interpreted restrictively - The determination whether ordering return would place the child in an intolerable situation, within the meaning of Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Child Abduction Hague Convention, may only be made in respect of the child, and not the taking parent -  Return must be ordered if the actual cause of the risk of placing the child in an intolerable situation upon return is an unfounded refusal of the taking parent to return with the child - The taking parent may stay in an area far from the left-behind parent's place of residence upon return to the requesting State, in order to preserve the stability that was gained by geographic separation from the left-behind parent

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed. There were no grounds for reversing the decision of the District Court.

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.

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

Appeal dismissed and return of older sibling ordered; his removal had been wrongful and the Article 13(1)(b) exception had not been established.