Latest Decisions

  • Added on: 11 August 2022 |Appellate Court

    “REAL MINISTERIO DE JUSTICIA Y SEGURIDAD PÚBLICA DE NORUEGA - DE L.F., L.Y.S – RESTITUCIÓN INTERNACIONAL DE MENOR” |URUGUAY |HC/E/UY 1529

    Languages
    Full text download ES
    Summary available in EN | ES
    Grounds

    Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters |

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2)

    Synopsis

    Wrongful retention of two girls when they were 8 and 11 years old – Uruguayan & Swedish – Unmarried parents – Uruguayan father – Uruguayan mother – Joint custody – The girls lived in the Kingdom of Norway until January 2019 – Return proceedings were commenced before Uruguayan courts on 27 May 2019 – Return ordered – Main issues: removal and retention, consent, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, objections of the child to a return, procedural matters – Retention was wrongful because it violated the father’s actually-exercised right of custody when it took place – There was not sufficient evidence on record proving the father’s consent or acquiescence to the change in the girls’ habitual residence – None of the circumstances alleged by the mother implied a grave risk for the girls if they returned to Norway – The girls’ statements evidenced that their opinions were influenced by their mother – The child support payments fixed in the first instance court judgment were overturned because this issue is outside the scope of application of the HCCH 1996 Child Protection Convention.

    View case
  • Added on: 11 August 2022 |First Instance

    G. L. S. L C/ C. V. L. J. RESTITUCIÓN INTERNACIONAL DE MENORES|URUGUAY |HC/E/UY 1528

    Languages
    Full text download ES
    Summary available in EN | ES
    Grounds

    Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention |

    Order

    Return refused

    Article(s)

    3 12 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    Lawful retention of two girls - Uruguayan – Separated parents – The girls lived in Brazil until 19 April 2019, when the mother removed them to Uruguay – The mother filed a return application with the Brazilian Central Authority – Return refused – Main issues: removal and retention, consent, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, procedural matters, interpretation of the Convention – There was no wrongful retention, as the mother actually removed them voluntarily to Uruguay – The mother had consented that the girls live in Uruguay by removing them to that country and delivering the necessary documents for them to resume their life there to the father – There was a grave risk due to the high emotional disturbance they suffered as a consequence of the physical, psychological and sexual violence they had suffered in Brazil – The proceedings are autonomous and specific for international child abduction cases under Uruguayan Law 18,895 – The children’s best interests in this case had been furthered by preventing them from returning to an environment of sexual, psychological and emotional abuse.

    View case
  • Added on: 7 July 2022 |Appellate Court

    2019 (Ra) No. 636 Appeal case against an order to return the child|JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1527

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    Japanese child born in 2014 ― Father and mother previously foreign nationals and naturalized in Japan ― Parents married in 2001 in Japan ― Parents and child moved to the US in July 2017 ― Child obtained health insurance and enrolled in kindergarten in the US ― Parents established a company and started a business in December 2017 in the US ― Marital relationship deteriorated, and father removed child to Japan in April 2019 ― Neither father nor mother had a long-term visa for the US ― Mother filed petition for the child’s return to the Tokyo Family Court in December 2019 ― Return ordered ― Appeal dismissed and return ordered by the Tokyo High Court in June 2020 ― Main issue: Habitual residence of the child and grave risk defence.

    View case
  • Added on: 7 July 2022 |Appellate Court

    2016 (Ra) No. 1262 Appeal case against dismissal of case seeking return of a child|JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1526

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 |

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    3

    Synopsis

    1 child (Australian and Japanese national) resided in Australia and Japan ― Father Australian national, mother Japanese national ― Parents married in 2013 in Australia ― Parents lived together in Japan from November 2013 until June 2014, until the father returned to Australia ― Mother joined Father in Australia from September 2014 until October 2015, with a written agreement to reside there only up to two years ― Mother returned to Japan with the child in October 2015 ― Father visited them in Japan from mid-December 2015 until mid-January 2016 ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to the Osaka Family Court in March 2016 ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal dismissed and return refused by the Osaka High Court in 2017 ― Main issue: Habitual residence of the child.

    View case
  • Added on: 7 July 2022 |Appellate Court

    2019 (Ra) No. 1038 Appeal case against dismissal of case seeking return of a child |JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1525

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 |

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    3 35

    Synopsis

    Daughter born in 2007 and son in 2012 ― Father, mother and both children previously Sri Lankan nationals and naturalized in Japan in 2017 ― Father living in Japan since 1999 and mother since 2002 ― Parents married in 2002 ― Father principally moved to Sri Lanka with two children in July 2017, but maintained his job, home and residence registration in Japan ― Mother also travelled back and forth ― Children enrolled at school in Sri Lanka in September 2017, but went back to their elementary school in Japan during long school breaks ― Parents separated since August 2018, followed by petitions for a custody order and divorce to the Osaka Family Court ― Mother retains son since April 2019 in Japan ― Father returned to Sri Lanka with daughter in May 2019 ― Father filed petition for the son’s return to the Osaka Family Court in June 2019 ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal dismissed and return refused by the Osaka High Court in October 2019 ― Main issue: Habitual residence of the child.

    View case
  • Added on: 7 July 2022 |First Instance

    2018 (Ie Nu) No. 14, 15 and 16 Case seeking return of children|JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1524

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) |

    Order

    Return refused

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b) 13(2) 12(2)

    Synopsis

    3 children habitually resident in Spain ― Father Spanish national, mother Japanese national ― Parents married in 2009 in Japan ― Upon marriage, father adopted mother’s child born out of wedlock in 2006 ― Two children were born within wedlock in 2011 and 2015 ― Parents first lived together in Japan and later relocated to Spain in May 2011 ― Mother brought three children to Japan in May 2017 and notified Father of her intent to divorce and stay in Japan ― Father filed petition for the return of the children to the Tokyo Family Court in October 2018 ― Petition dismissed ― Main issue: Settlement of the children.

    View case
  • Added on: 5 May 2022 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision of the Federal Supreme Court 5A_437/2021 of 8 September 2021|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1523

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    1 3 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    1 child (allegedly) wrongfully removed at age 4 – National of the USA – Unmarried parents – Father national of the USA and the Dominican Republic – Mother national of Switzerland, the Dominican Republic, Italy – Shared parental responsibility – Child lived in the USA – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Switzerland on 7th of January 2021 – Return refused – Main issue: Grave Risk (Art. 13(1)(b) – Status quo ante cannot be attained, since mother has a travel ban to the USA. Grave risk to the child if separated from the mother for the next 10 years.

    View case
  • Added on: 6 April 2022 |First Instance

    L. E. A. C. s/ Restitución Internacional|CHILE |HC/E/CL 1522

    Languages
    Full text download ES
    Summary available in EN | ES
    Grounds

    Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters |

    Order

    Return refused

    Article(s)

    1 3 13(1)(b) 13(2) 12(2)

    Synopsis

    Alleged wrongful retention of the child when he was 9 years old – National of Argentina – Unmarried parents –Argentine father – Argentine mother – The child lived in Argentina until November 2014 – The return request was filed before the Chilean court on 22 April 2016 – Return refused – Main issues: habitual residence, rights of custody, settlement of the child, art. 13(1)(b) exception of grave risk, objections of the child to a return, procedural matters - the habitual residence of the child before the removal was in Argentina – the mother had rights of custody under the Convention, and thus retention was not wrongful and the father had no standing to request the international return – over two years elapsed between the arrival of the boy in Chile and the filing of the request, and the child was already settled in – return would certainly put the child at risk of endangering his physical and psychological integrity, due to his mother and him experiencing family violence – the child openly stated his wish not to return to Argentina.

    View case
  • Added on: 6 April 2022 |First Instance

    G/G. RIT: C-403-2017|CHILE |HC/E/CL 1521

    Languages
    Full text download ES
    Summary available in EN | ES
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    1 3 5 6 8 10 12 17

    Ruling

    Return ordered

    View case
  • Added on: 5 April 2022 |Appellate Court

    K. K. J C/ P. C. .S S/ RESTITUCIÓN INTERNACIONAL|ARGENTINA |HC/E/AR 1520

    Languages
    Full text download ES
    Summary available in EN | ES
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    3 12

    Synopsis

    Lawful removal of a 2-year-old girl – Argentine national – Married parents – American father – Argentine mother – The girl lived in Argentina until April 2017, when her family travelled to the United States. She stayed there and then returned to Argentina in September that same year – The father requested her return before the Argentine courts – Appeal dismissed, return refused – Main Issues: habitual residence, removal and retention – The habitual residence of the girl was in Argentina because she had created no stable or permanent bonds in the United States that allowed for a determination that her place of living was there – The removal was lawful since it had been authorised by court in accordance with Argentine law.

    View case