Case Law Search

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.

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

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

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters | Non-Convention Issues

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; but if the mother were to be given permission by the Northern Ireland High Court to raise one of the Article 13 exceptions, then the return order could be stayed until the latter application was heard.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered subject to undertakings by both parents; the retention of the child had been wrongful, and the grave risk of harm exception had not been established.

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

Appeal inadmissible; the appellant failed to assert any plea raising a substantial issue.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Leave to appeal refused and return application dismissed; there had been no wrongful removal because the father did not have rights of custody at the moment of the removal.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed aged less than one year old - Unmarried parents - Joint custody - Child lived in Greece until May 2010 - Application for return filed in April 2011 - Return ordered - Main issues: Settlement of the child, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return, procedural matters - Art. 12(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention only applies where return proceedings have been commenced after a period of more than one year has elapsed since the date of the wrongful removal

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Two children wrongfully removed at ages nine and seven – Married parents – Shared parental custody – Children lived in Spain until 5 February 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 17 February 2016 –Application dismissed – Main issue(s): Habitual residence - is understood to mean the actual centre of the child's life, which is determined by the factual circumstances; Consent - the departure of the spouse does not require any approval by the other; the only thing requiring approval is the change of the children's place of residence abroad; Grave risk - must be interpreted restrictively: meaning a serious danger, initial language and reintegration difficulties typically do not constitute a serious danger.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

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

Case remitted to lower court

A court is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying a Hague Convention petition for return of a child to a foreign country once the court has found that return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm.

Case remanded to District Court to determine whether the measures considered are adequate to order return in light of the District Court’s factual findings concerning the risk to the child, bearing in mind that the Convention sets as a primary goal the safety of the child.

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 | Best Interests of the Child

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.

Non-Convention Issues | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Best Interests of the Child | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered