Case Law Search

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

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was wrongful and Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

The father's appeal was allowed and the order dismissing his application as an abuse of the process set aside. The mother's cross-appeal was dismissed as the child was found to be habitually resident in Germany immediately prior to her removal. The child was to be returned to Germany, subject to undertakings.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2

The court ordered that the girls be returned to Sweden to enable the original Convention proceedings to be completed.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; a grave risk of harm had been established to the standard required by Article 13(1)(b).

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal breached a right of custody actually exercised by the grandmother.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - 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 had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered, provided that the child was permitted to enter the United States. The retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required by the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained at age 2 – Unmarried parents – Father national of Italy – Mother national of France – Italian court granted joint custody rights and decided that the child should live with the mother – Child lived in Italy until December 2015 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Italy in September 2016 - Application dismissed – Main issues: Rights of custody, habitual residence – It is up to the taking parent to prove that the left-behind parent was not exercising his rights of custody at the time of the removal or retention – It is for the authorities of the requesting State to determine the arrangements for the reception of the child upon her return

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; regard had to be paid to the terms of the provisional order of the Czech District Court permitting the children to live with the mother in Sweden.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2

Return refused

In the absence of any possibility of there being a substantive hearing in France the return of the girls was refused.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Return ordered

Application allowed; counter-application dismissed. The child was ordered to be returned forthwith to California.

If the mother accompanied the child, he would remain in her temporary custody in Los Angeles County with reasonable access to the father, pending any other interim or permanent order of a California court having jurisdiction.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

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

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return refused

Return refused; the retention was not wrongful as the father had consented to the relocation of the child.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful but Article 12(2) was successfully invoked, the child now being settled in her new environment.

Unanimous: no infringement of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz).

Interpretation of the Convention | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Guidance on the application of the Convention issued

2 children retained at ages 11 and 8 – Nationals of Canada – Married parents – Father national of Canada – Mother national of Canada – Father transferred physical custody in a notarised letter to the mother for the period April 2013 to August 2014, to allow the children to enroll in a Canadian school – Children lived in Germany until April 2013 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Germany on 11 April 2014 – Return decision of the Court of Appeal of Ontario of 13 September 2016 was appealed to the Supreme Court, but the children were returned to Germany before the Court rendered its judgment; despite the appeal being moot, the Court considered the issues raised to be important and in need of clarification – Main issues: interpretation of the Convention, habitual residence, objections of the child to a return, procedural matters – To ensure uniformity of State practice, courts should generally adopt the interpretation of the Convention that has gained the most support in other foreign domestic courts – The “hybrid approach” to determining habitual residence (which considers all relevant factual links and circumstances in their entirety, instead of focusing either on parental intention or the child’s acclimatisation) should be followed – Courts should adopt a non-technical and straightforward approach to considering the child’s objections to return – It is up to the judicial authorities to ensure that the State lives up to its obligations to act expeditiously under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention – Convention proceedings should be judge-led, not party-driven, and judges should not hesitate to use their authority to expedite proceedings

Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Wrongful retention of a 1-year-old boy – Costa Rican – unmarried parents – Nicaraguan father – Dominican mother – Joint custody rights – The boy lived in Costa Rica until January 2018 – The return request was filed before a Nicaraguan court in January 2019 – Return ordered – Main issues: procedural matters – The parents agreed that the child would return to Costa Rica in the company of his father once the latter was assured that he would not be criminally sanctioned for child abduction.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Return ordered, subject to undertakings; the child was habitually resident in Canada on the relevant date.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and Article 13(1)(b) was not proved to the standard required under the Convention.