Case Law Search

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Cross-appeal allowed in part and return refused; the standard had been met to show that the children would face a grave risk of harm if returned and the return petition could not be re-activated.

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

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

2 children wrongfully removed at ages 9 and 7 – Nationals of Korea – Married parents – Father national of The Republic of Korea– Mother national of The Republic of Korea– Parents had joint custody – Children lived in Japan until 28 June 2016 – Application for return filed with the court of The Republic of Korea on 21 April 2017 – Return refused – Main issue: Article 13(1)(b) – a “grave risk” includes cases where the child is at risk of psychological harm due to frequent violence committed against the other parent.

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

Return ordered with undertakings offered

3 children wrongfully removed at age 7 – Father national of the United Kingdom and Canada – Mother national of the United Kingdom and Canada – Both parents had rights of custody under the law of Scotland – Children lived in the United Kingdom until August 2009 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of the Scotland on 20 October 2009 – Return ordered – Main issue(s): Rights of custody – Art. 3 – Father had rights of custody under the law of Scotland; there was no court order restricting his rights as a parent – Removal & Retention – Arts 3 and 12 – Children wrongfully removed, in breach of the father’s custody rights and without his consent. The father was exercising his rights despite the child protection investigation – Grave Risk – Art. 13(1)(b) –There is no grave risk. Social service agencies and court in Scotland will protect the children upon their return – Undertakings – Undertakings imposed to assist the return and to protect the children in the transitional period before the court in Scotland takes over. 

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Return refused

One child wrongfully retained at age 5 – National of Germany - Divorced parents – Father national of Germany – Mother national of Russia – Parents had joint custody – Child lived in Germany until 13 July 2017  – Application for return was filed with the Court on 30 August 2018 – Return refused – Main issue(s): Article 13(1)(b), grave risk due to violence from the father; Article 12, child settled in new environment.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Non-Convention Issues | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child removed at age 3 years  ― National of Canada and Japan ― Married parents ― Father and Mother married in Canada in 2009 and living there ― Joint custody at the time of wrongful retention ― Child lived in Canada until July 2013 ― Mother removed the child to Japan with Father’s consent ― A wrongful retention of the child after the entry into force of the Convention between Canada and Japan on 1 April 2014  ― Application for return filed with the courts of Japan in March 2015 ― Appeal dismissed and return ordered ― Main issues: Article 3 Habitual residence of the child ― The initial time of the wrongful retention ― Article 13(1)(a) Prior consent or subsequent approval by the father ― Abuse of rights by the father.

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

Return ordered

The court ordered the return of the child to Armenia within four weeks.

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

Return refused

The court refused to order the return of the children. The Article 13(1)(b) exception had been made out and there would be a grave risk of harm to the children if they were returned.

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

Application dismissed

The Court dismissed the return application.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Return refused

The court found that the father acquiesced in the children remaining in Canada, and refused to order the return of the children under the the Article 13(a) exception.

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.

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

Return ordered

2 children wrongfully retained at ages 1 and 2 – Married parents – Father national of the United States – Mother national of Canada – Both parents had rights of custody under the laws of Iowa – Children lived in the United State until 16 June 2018 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of the United States on 18 August 2018 – Return ordered – Main issues: Article 3 -  children habitually resident in the United States, father had rights of custody and had only agreed to a one month stay in Canada, retention was therefore wrongful - Article 13(1)(a) Consent & Acquiescence – Exception not established, there is no “clear and cogent evidence of unequivocal consent or acquiescence” - Article 13(1)(b) Grave Risk – Exception not established, measures of protection are available in Iowa.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

1 child allegedly retained at age 6 months – National of the US Father national of US – Mother national of Canada – Father gave open-ended consent to mother to travel with the child to Canada – Child lived in United States for first 42 days of life – Application for return filed with the courts of Canada in December 2017 – The return decision of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court was appealed to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal where the application was dismissed – Main issues: habitual residence – the Court of Appeal applied the “hybrid approach” to determine the habitual residence of the child and found the child to be habitually resident in Nova Scotia.

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

Return ordered

The Court found that the retention of the children in South Africa was wrongful and ordered their return to New Zealand.

Return ordered

One child wrongfully retained at age 4 – Separated parents – Father national of Australia – Mother national of United Kingdom – Joint custody rights – Child lived in Australia until August 2019 – Application for return filed in November 2019 – Return ordered  – Main issue: COVID-19 – due to the current travel restrictions in the UK and in Australia, a date would be fixed for the protective measures to be in place and a date thereafter for the child to return.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered.  

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered with undertakings offered

The Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the return of the child: the habitual residence of the child was in the United States, the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.