Appeal allowed and return ordered; the trial judge had erred in his interpretation of Article 13(2). Reassessing the nature of the objections of the eldest child the Inner House concluded that they were not of sufficient weight to activate the exception. The eldest child being returned the younger siblings would therefore be returned also.
1 child wrongfully removed at age 7 – National of Poland –unmarried parents– Father national of Poland – Mother national of Poland – Disputed custody rights– Child lived in Poland until August 2014 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Poland in September 2014 – Return ordered – Main issues: Article 3 – Rights of custody – the father had limited custody rights but these extended to the right to decide the child’s habitual residence and therefore the father had rights of custody within the meaning of the Convention; Article 13(1)(b) – Grave risk of harm - there were no grounds for concluding that return would be “clearly unfavourable to the child” or that he would most likely suffer harm if returned. Therefore the exception did not apply; Article 13 – Child’s objections - the fact that the child said he wanted to live with his mother was not a ground for concluding that the child was opposed to returning to Poland, therefore the exception did not apply.
Return ordered with undertakings offered; the child was habitually resident in England at the relevant date.
Two children wrongfully retained at age 3 – Nationals of Canada and Mexico –divorced parents – Father national of Canada – Mother national of Mexico – Mother was primary carer and father had rights of access – Children lived in Mexico until 2014 – Return ordered and appeal dismissed – Main issue(s): Article 13(1)(b) – The argued risk of psychological harm to one of the children if returned to Mexico due to the lack of autism therapies was not sufficient to invoke the Article 13(1)(b) exception.
Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(1)(a) and (b) and Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.
Removal wrongful and return ordered subject to undertakings; the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been established.
Appeal dismissed; return order upheld. The Court of Appeal had duly provided grounds for its decision and was not required to conduct a more thorough investigation relating to a possible grave risk of danger.
Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions raised was applicable.
Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and no exception asserted was applicable.
Retention wrongful but return refused; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had been made out. The fact that the mother was denied entry into the United States constituted a grave risk that the child would be placed in an intolerable situation if sent back alone.