Case Law Search

Procedural Matters

Appeal inadmissible. The issue of the child's best interests could only be evoked to oppose the enforcement if a change in circumstances had occurred between the issuance of the return order and its enforcement. It was for the judge seized with an application for modification to decide on this point.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal allowed in part; the removal was wrongful but the return of the girls would be refused for the father by his actions had acquiesced in their remaining in Israel.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal declared inadmissible. The existence of a valid consent does not generally raise any important question of law which may be referred to the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof). Nor had the Court of Appeal, in the case at hand, made any key misinterpretations requiring correction by the Supreme Court.

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed and partially founded. The child's return to Germany was ordered.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; none of the Article 13 exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

The retention was wrongful and Article 13(2) was not proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered, the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions were applicable.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal allowed and case remitted to trial court; determination to be made as to what undertakings, if any, would be sufficient to ensure the safety of the children upon their return to Mexico pending the outcome of custody proceedings.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of a girl when she was four years old - Mexican – Argentine mother – Mexican father – Married parents – The girl lived in Puerto Aventuras, Estado de Quintana Roo, Mexico, until February 2020 – The return request was filed before the Argentine Central Authority – Appeal allowed, return ordered -  Main Issues: habitual residence, removal and retention, grave risk exception, procedural matters, commitments – the girl’s habitual residence was in Mexico – the girl was wrongfully retained in Argentina by the mother because she did not return to Mexico upon expiration of the term in the father’s travel authorisation – The mother did not show that the family violence situation reported posed a grave risk to the girl; neither did she prove the lack of protection measures in Mexico – the interpretation standards of the 1980 HCCH Convention apply to the cases governed by the Inter-American Convention – Measures were taken to guarantee the safe return of the child to her State of habitual residence.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful, the child being habitually resident in Canada at the relevant date.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Two children wrongfully removed at ages 6 and 3 - Nationals of Romania - Divorced parents - Father national of Romania - Mother national of Romania - Parents share caring responsibilities for the children and frequently moved between England and Romania throughout marriage - Father consented to children living in England with mother post-divorce - Children lived with father in Romania between September 2019 and February 2020 - Children returned to England with mother - Father sought to renege on his earlier consent - Application for return filed in England on 17 July 2020 by the father - Return ordered notwithstanding a finding of consent - Mother appealed this decision - Main issues: habitual residence and consent - Court agreed that children were habitually resident in Romania, however, allowed the appeal in relation to consent

Issues Relating to Return | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal allowed, return refused

2 children allegedly wrongfully removed at ages 4 and 7 – Nationals of the United States of America – Parents pending divorce – Father national of USA – Mother national of USA, UK and Ireland – Parents were still married at the time of mother’s wrongful retention – Children lived in Illinois, USA (until 8 June 2022) – Application for return filed with the courts of Illinois, USA on 2 September 2022 – Return ordered 28 February 2023 – Main issues: Where there is a grave risk of harm to the children under Article 13(1)(b) the analysis of protective measures should not be limited to the measures available but should also consider whether these measures would be effective in the specific circumstances.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 |

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Daughter born in 2007 and son in 2012 ― Father, mother and both children previously Sri Lankan nationals and naturalized in Japan in 2017 ― Father living in Japan since 1999 and mother since 2002 ― Parents married in 2002 ― Father principally moved to Sri Lanka with two children in July 2017, but maintained his job, home and residence registration in Japan ― Mother also travelled back and forth ― Children enrolled at school in Sri Lanka in September 2017, but went back to their elementary school in Japan during long school breaks ― Parents separated since August 2018, followed by petitions for a custody order and divorce to the Osaka Family Court ― Mother retains son since April 2019 in Japan ― Father returned to Sri Lanka with daughter in May 2019 ― Father filed petition for the son’s return to the Osaka Family Court in June 2019 ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal dismissed and return refused by the Osaka High Court in October 2019 ― Main issue: Habitual residence of the child.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the child objected to a return and the standard required by Article 13(2) had been reached.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the trial judge to enable the child's views to be ascertained.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return ordered

Removal wrongful ad return ordered; the children had not settled in their new environment and the objectives of the older children were not of the requisite standard to justify a non-return order being made.