Case Law Search

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

Return ordered

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

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in England at the time of the removal.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return order confirmed; the child was habitually resident in Canada at the relevant date making her removal wrongful.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful having breached rights of custody held by the father, the mother failed to establish that the child if returned would be exposed to a grave risk of harm.

Human Rights - Art. 20

Legal challenge rejected; the removal was wrongful and Article 20 was inapplicable.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Article 15 Decision or Determination

Appeal allowed, refusal of Article 15 declaration overturned

Appeal allowed and Article 15 declaration granted; the removal of the children had been in breach of actually exercised rights of custody and was therefore wrongful.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the children were habitually resident in Israel at the date of the alleged wrongful retention.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Legal challenge upheld and new order issued for the child to be returned; the removal was wrongful and the conditions necessary for the application of Article 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had not been met.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed in part and application dismissed; the children were habitually resident in Israel at the date of the alleged wrongful retention. The trial court had though erred in its interpretation of the concept of acquiescence.

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

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

Appeal allowed, 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.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Return ordered

The father's appeal was dismissed and the daughter's return ordered. The mother's appeal was dismissed and the son's return refused at this time.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

2 children allegedly wrongfully retained at ages 3 and less than 1 - Unmarried parents - Father national of France - Mother national of the United Kingdom and Canada - Children lived in France until July 2013 - Return proceedings initiated soon after 20 November 2013 - Application dismissed - Main issue: habitual residence - Parents' joint decision for children to temporarily move to another State does not preclude the children from becoming habitually resident in that State

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

2 children wrongfully retained at ages 6 and 10 – Married parents – Father national of Poland – Mother national of Poland – Joint custody excercised in Switzerland – Children lived in Switzerland – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Switzerland on 24 October 2008 – Application dismissed before application to ECtHR on 1 December 2009 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 11,800 awarded in damages – The Polish courts had not taken into account the legitimate interests of the applicant in an adequate or fair manner in the judicial proceedings; i.a. improperly relying on a Polish interim custody order to consider the retention lawful

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered. The removal and retention of the child in Uruguay was considered wrongful.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; in an unanimous ruling, the Chamber ruled that there had not been a breach of the father and children's right to family life under Article 8 of the ECHR.

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

Return refused

1 child wrongfully retained at age 10 - National of El Salvador and Canada - Married parents - Father national of El Salvador - Mother national of Canada - Father exercised rights of custody for about 10 years, mother obtained custody in May 2012 - Child lived in El Salvador until November 2011 - Application for return filed with the Provincial Court in July 2012 - Return refused under Article 13(2) - Main issues: Art 13(1) (b) grave risk exception to return, objection of the child to return - Abuse of one parent by another can only be a relevant consideration for the Art. 13(1)(b) exception if the child is “placed in the midst of an abusive relationship” - An assessment of whether a child was placed in an intolerable situation due to the administration of corporal punishment should account for the range of generally accepted disciplining practices in the relevant social context - The factors to be taken into consideration when assessing whether a child has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of her views include: level of cognitive functioning, capacity for logical and rational reasoning and nuanced evaluation of different circumstances - Decisions not to order return under Article 13(2) should account for the policy considerations underlying the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention 

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

2 children wrongfully removed at ages 4 and 2 – Unmarried parents – Father national of Canada – Mother national of Canada and Columbia – Shared custody (parenting arrangement) – Children lived with both parents at times in the United States of America and at times in Canada – Children last lived in the United States of America from August 2010 until their removal in April 2013 - Application for return filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia in April 2013  – Return ordered – Main issues: habitual residence, Art. 13(1) (b) grave risk exception – A settled intention of the parents, for the purposes of establishing habitual residence, requires a “sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled” – Mere speculation that one of the parents might be deported on grounds of immigration status and might choose to move to a State that would allegedly endanger the children is insufficient evidence to establish that the Art. 13(1) (b) grave risk exception applies

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The mother’s complaint appeal was rejected and the father’s application for the return of the child was approved. It was not possible to establish any reason to suggest that the child’s wellbeing would be endangered in the event that she were returned.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

The immediate complaint appeal was approved and the father’s application for a return was successful.

The accusations made against the father, which led to a rejection of the return application in accordance with Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention by the court of first instance, were not held to have been proven.

However, the court refrained from ordering the immediate surrender of the three children to the father, and has instead opted for a “graduated return order”. The “graduated return order”, granted the mother the opportunity to effect the return of the children herself. The Hague Child Abduction Convention does not contain any explicit rules on how exactly the courts are to order returns. Determining the operative provisions of the return order is a matter of domestic procedural law.