Case Law Search

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful as the child was habitually resident in England at the relevant date.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate a grave risk of physical and psychological harm had been met.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Return ordered, subject to undertakings; the removal was wrongful as it was in breach of the father's rights of custody and the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been met. Order stayed to permit the mother a short time to reconsider her position on accompanying the children.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was wrongful as it breached the rights of custody vested in the Ontario Court seized of the proceedings.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Israel on the relevant date.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Challenge to legality dismissed; there had been no breach of custody rights. The application was therefore dismissed.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Challenge to legality dismissed; the child's objections satisfied the standard required under Article 13(2) of the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful as the father held custody rights which were breached by the removal and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the removal of the child was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.

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

Return ordered

Returned ordered; neither Article 13(1)(a) nor Article 13(1)(a) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the Agency was found to have rights of custody, while the child was deemed to be habitually resident in the USA. Article 13(1)(b) was not proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the children were habitually resident in Australia at the relevant date.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the children had lost their Californian habitual residence. Consequently there could be no wrongful retention.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the girls had lost their New Zealand habitual residence at the time of the alleged retention. Consequently there could be no wrongful retention.

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

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the majority held that the agreement that mother and child could return to Scotland if the relationship failed remained in existence, therefore the father was regarded as having consented to the removal.

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

Appeal allowed; the retention was wrongful as the child had been habitually resident in Australia at the relevant date. The case was remitted to the District Court to rule on whether any of the exceptions might apply.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal of the child was wrongful and none of the exceptions was applicable.