Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and non-return order upheld; the retention was wrongful but the child would face a grave risk of harm if returned.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the children had valid objections to a return and in the light of fresh evidence considered on appeal, a non-return order was made.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions raised applied.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

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

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of two children, a boy aged 4 and a girl aged 6 – Nationals of the United States, Costa Rica and El Salvador – The children resided in Lourdes de San Vito de Coto Crus, Puntarenas, Costa Rica at the moment of the removal to El Salvador – The return application was submitted before the Central Authority of the Republic of El Salvador – Appeal allowed, return ordered – Main issues: removal and retention, rights of custody, objections of the child to a return, procedural issues – The habitual residence of the children before the removal was in Costa Rica – The children were wrongfully retained by their mother in El Salvador because they did not return to Costa Rica after a month of vacation as agreed– Both parents had rights of custody – The hearing process of the children and the taking of their opinions into consideration were not carried out properly – The debate over the merits of the rights of custody unnecessarily delayed the return proceeding, in contravention of the nature and purpose of the Convention.

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

Return refused

Return refused.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and imprisonment of parent upheld; under the law of New Jersey the removal of the child had been wrongful and the mother in not returning the child was in contempt of court.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Application inadmissible; all elements of the complaints were found to be manifestly ill-founded.

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

The Court unanimously ruled that Romania had breached Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to thoroughly assess the best interests of the child and to give the father the opportunity to present his case. It also awarded the father compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return ordered

3 children wrongfully retained at age 8, 10 and 12 - Married parents - Father national of Australia - Mother national of Finland and Australia - Family moved to Finland from Australia in June 2014 - Family returned to Australia for a temporary visit in March 2015 - Application for return filed with the first instance court in May 2015 - Return ordered - Main issues: Habitual residence - Where the parents have a common intention to settle in a given State for a year without any agreement as to where they would live thereafter, the children may be considered habitually resident there, depending on the facts of the case (including attendance and progression at school, engagement in extra-curricular activities, connections with friends and family, receipt of government benefits, the parents’ (search for) employment, participation in local health schemes) - The finding that a child has acquired habitual residence in a given State may more readily be made where the child has already lost habitual residence in the State in which he or she previously lived

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

2 children wrongfully removed (born in 2005 and 2007) - Separated parents - The Purvian courts had effectively granted temporary custody to the mother on 21 November 2013, and then to the father on 1 October 2014 (following the removal)  - Children lived in Peru until 20 February 2014 - Application for return filed with the District Court on 17 February 2015 - Return ordered subject to undertakings - Main issues: rights of custody, Art.13(1)(b) "grave risk" exception to return, undertakings - A very severe degree of psychological abuse is sufficient to conclude that the Art. 13(1)(b) "grave risk" exception to return under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention applies, even in cases in which there is very little or no evidence of physical abuse

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

2 children wrongfully removed at ages 5 and 6 – Unmarried parents – After separation the mother obtained an ex parte interim order granting her sole custody – Children lived in Canada until July 2011 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Germany on 15 June 2012  - British Columbia Supreme Court issued a decision / declaration under Art. 15 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention that the removal was wrongful on 9 July 2012 - Return ordered by the German Court of Schleswig on 23 July 2012 – Main issue: rights of custody – While a final determination of custody has yet to be made but custody has been awarded on an interim basis, the court retains rights of custody within the meaning of the Convention – This principle is not affected by the absence of a non-removal clause in an interim order  

Appeal dismissed, return refused

One child wrongfully removed – National of Venezuela – Unmarried parents– Father national of Venezuela – Mother national of Venezuela – Father awarded primary custody which was revoked when he left for the USA. Mother granted supervised visits – Child lived in Venezuela until February 2014 – Application for return filed with the court of the USA on 15 December 2014 – Return refused – Main issue(s): Article 13(1)(b) – sufficiently serious threats and violence directed against a child’s parent can pose a grave risk of harm to the child as well.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the trial court; the trial court had erred by failing to determine whether the parents had intended to abandon their habitual residence in the United States of America or whether they had intended to retain it while residing abroad temporarily.

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

Return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 3 – National of Croatia – Married parents– Father national of Croatia – Mother national of Croatia – Joint parental responsibility under the  German Civil Code – Child lived in Germany until 6 April 2016 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Croatia on 10 June 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Croatia on 29 August 2016 – Return ordered – Main issues:  Rights of Custody, Art. 13(1)(b) “grave risk” exception to return, Objections of the Child to a Return – The child’s removal from Germany to Croatia was held to be unlawful under the Hague Convention, and none of the exceptions to ordering return were deemed applicable.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed. The father had acquiesced.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

The Court unanimously ruled that Hungary had breached Article 8 of the ECHR where domestic courts failed to act expeditiously in the proceedings to return the child and the national authorities had failed to take adequate and effective measures for the enforcement of the return order. It also awarded the father compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; the child was settled in his new environment and the Court exercised its discretion not to order his return.

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

Return refused

There had been a fundamental change of circumstances as the mother was no longer willing to return to Poland. The judge set aside the initial ruling and refused the application for return based on the Article 13(1)(b) exception.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was held not to be habitually resident in California at the time of the retention.