Case Law Search

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

Application inadmissible, there had been no manifest error in analysis of the child's habitual residence.

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

Proceedings dismissed and costs awarded against the children's litigation guardian.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; by a 2:1 majority the Court found that Article 13(1)(a) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had been activated, one judge found that this was on the basis of consent, the other as a result of acquiescence.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Case remitted to lower court

1 child allegedly wrongfully removed - Married parents - Father national of Italy - Mother national of Italy - Joint custody - Child lived in Belgium until February 2014 - Return refused - Main issues: Rights of custody - A removal cannot be considered wrongful if it did not breach custody rights that were actually exercised at the time of the removal 

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 7 – National of France – Married parents – Father national of France – Mother national of France – Child lived in Morocco until February 2011 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Morocco in March 2011 – Application dismissed – Main issues: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, costs – It is up to the parent who alleges an exception to return under Art. 13 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention to prove that the conditions for non-return have been met – In accordance with Art. 26 of the Convention, the parent who wrongfully removed the child can be ordered to pay for the costs of the return proceedings

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully removed at age 11 – Divorced parents – Father national of France and Morocco – Mother national of France – Full custody rights automatically awarded to the mother after the divorce under Moroccan law – Child lived in Morocco until October 2014 – Application for return filed with the Juge aux affaires familiales of France in December 2014 – Return refused – Main issue: Rights of custody – Rights of custody, including in particular the right to determine the child’s place of residence, has to be determined in accordance with the law of the State where the child had his habitual residence immediately before the removal

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Case remitted to lower court

1 child wrongfully removed at age 4 - National of Switzerland - Unmarried parents - Father national of Switzerland - Mother national of Spain - The lower courts had determined that the removal was in breach of the father’s custody rights - Child lived in Switzerland until August 2013 - Application for return filed with the courts of Spain on 7 November 2013 - Return refused at first instance, then return ordered on appeal - Main issue: settlement of the child - “Amparo” claim successful: the Constitutional Court found that the mother’s constitutional right to effective legal protection had been violated (no ruling on return / non-return) - A proper analysis of whether the child has become settled in its new environment should be conducted where a year has passed since the abduction occurred, in order for a decision to be rendered that is in the best interests of the child - It is immaterial that the delay is not attributable to the conduct of the parents; regardless of the cause, it may not affect the best interests of the child

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered forthwith subject to undertakings. The child had been wrongfully removed and none of the exceptions applied.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The court found that the Convention was not applicable to the case but dismissed the appeal on the basis that the child's interests were best served by a return to the United States.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; in the absence of any evidence in rebuttal from the applicant father the court accepted that there was a grave risk the boys would face an intolerable situation if returned.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Leave to appeal refused and return order confirmed; the removal was wrongful and the objections of the children to a return did not satisfy the standards of Article 13(2).

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Challenge rejected and return order confirmed. The removal was wrongful and the court of appeal had correctly found the Article 13(1)(b) exception to be inapplicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Challenge dismissed and return order confirmed. The court of appeal had not breached Article 13(2) by refusing to hear the children.