Case Bank
Search 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention Cases
Loading filters and latest case entries. Please hold on while we fetch the database.
Loading search filters and cases…
Loading search filters and cases…
Case Bank
Loading filters and latest case entries. Please hold on while we fetch the database.
Loading search filters and cases…
Loading search filters and cases…Case Bank
Search criteria may be entered into any or all of the fields. Each record contains a concise abstract, classification data, and a link to the text of the judgment where available.
Showing 1 to 10 of 54 cases
| Action | H96-CB Ref | Court | Country | Date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H96-2025-000004 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (Bundesverfassungsgericht) | Germany | 9 Apr 2025 | First instance | |
| H96-2025-000001 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 25 Feb 2025 | First instance | |
| H96-2024-000012 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 10 Dec 2024 | First instance | |
| H96-2024-000021 | Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia | Australia | 20 Nov 2024 | Appellate Court | |
| H96-2024-000013 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 25 Oct 2024 | First instance | |
| H96-2024-000015 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 17 Sept 2024 | First instance | |
| H96-2024-000016 | Family Court (England and Wales), sitting at Oxford | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 6 Sept 2024 | First instance | |
| H96-2024-000020 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 21 Aug 2024 | First instance | |
| H96-2024-000017 | Family Court (England and Wales), sitting at Oxford | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 6 Aug 2024 | First instance | |
| H96-2024-000018 | Court of Session (Inner House, Extra Division), Scotland | United Kingdom - Scotland | 26 Jul 2024 | Appellate Court |
The mother was engaged in a prolonged legal dispute with her former husband concerning custody of their children, primarily the two youngest. The couple separated in 2014 and divorced in 2018. They initially shared joint custody of the younger children, who continued to reside with the mother in Germany following the separation. The father relocated to Denmark. Since 2015, the father had regular contact with the two younger children, who visited him in Denmark on weekends. During one such visit in 2021, the father informed the mother that he would not return the children to Germany, alleging that she posed a risk to their welfare. This led to multiple proceedings concerning custody and the children's return. In October 2021, a German court granted the mother sole rights of residence and ordered the father to return the children. However, a Danish court declined to enforce this order. In February 2023, a Danish District Court rejected the mother’s application for return, finding that the children would face an intolerable situation if returned to Germany and that they opposed the return. Following this, the German courts declared that they no longer had international jurisdiction. They concluded that the children's habitual residence, for the purposes of Article 5(1) of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention, was now in Denmark. While the father's actions constituted wrongful retention under Article 7(1) of the Convention, the children had been living in Denmark for over two years, attending school and becoming socially integrated. Accordingly, under Article 7(1)(b), Germany no longer had jurisdiction. On 31 December 2023, the children were abducted by unknown individuals and brought to Germany. From 2 January 2024, they were in contact with their mother and remained at her residence. Following this incident, further custody proceedings ensued. A Danish court, asserting international jurisdiction, issued an interim order granting the father custody and the right to determine the children’s residence. A German court subsequently issued a similar interim order. For its interim decision, the German court relied on Article 11 of the 1996 Convention, citing the children’s presence in Germany. Nevertheless, in all other proceedings, the German courts maintained that they lacked international jurisdiction, given the children’s habitual residence in Denmark. Pursuant to the interim orders, the children were returned to Denmark on 5 January 2024. The mother then lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court, alleging, inter alia, violations of her right to a lawful judge and her fundamental parental rights, on the grounds that the German courts had wrongly declined jurisdiction under the 1996 Convention. The Federal Constitutional Court declined to hear the complaint, finding it partly inadmissible and partly unfounded. The Court held that the Higher Regional Court’s conclusion—that the children were habitually resident in Denmark and had settled there within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of the Convention—raised no constitutional concerns. The court’s overall assessment satisfied constitutional standards, taking into account the children's residence with their father and his new family, their schooling, social integration, and their expressed wish to remain in Denmark. The Federal Constitutional Court further held that the children did not need to be heard in the context of determining whether they were “settled” within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b), as this assessment did not involve a substantive decision on their best interests. Regarding the German court’s interim decision based on Article 11 of the Convention, the Federal Constitutional Court found that there was no need for legal protection, as the decision was presumed to have lapsed under Article 11(2) due to the issuance of a corresponding measure by the Danish court, which held jurisdiction based on the children's habitual residence.
The case concerned a nine-year-old Ukrainian child who had been living with her father in the Netherlands since 2023. In September 2024, the mother removed the child from the Netherlands without the father's consent, first taking her to France, then Ukraine, and ultimately England. The father sought the child's return under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. The court found that the child was habitually resident in the Netherlands at the time of removal and that the father possessed and was exercising rights of custody. In analysing those rights, the court relied on Article 16 of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention, holding that parental responsibility acquired under Ukrainian law continued notwithstanding changes in the child's habitual residence. The court concluded that the removal was wrongful, that no defence under Article 13 was established, and that the child should be returned to the Netherlands. The judgment further observed that any future welfare disputes should be determined by the Dutch courts as the courts of the child's habitual residence.
The applicant, a British national, obtained a Moroccan kafala order in respect of a Moroccan child who had been declared abandoned by the Moroccan courts. The child was subsequently brought to the United Kingdom and the applicant applied for an adoption order. The case raised questions concerning the interaction between Moroccan kafala, English adoption law, and international child protection instruments. The court held that the child had been brought to the United Kingdom for the purpose of adoption and that section 83 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the Adoptions with a Foreign Element Regulations 2005 therefore applied. Although the applicant had not complied with all statutory requirements, the court held that non-compliance did not automatically preclude the making of an adoption order. In light of the child's welfare and the exceptional circumstances of the case, the adoption order was granted. In its analysis, the court confirmed that a Moroccan kafala order is recognised in the United Kingdom under Article 23 of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention.
The mother removed the child from Australia to Hungary without the father’s consent. The father commenced proceedings under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, and the Hungarian courts, including on appeal, ordered the child’s return to Australia after determining that the child’s habitual residence was Australia. The mother did not comply with those orders and later sought to argue in Australian parenting proceedings that Australia was a clearly inappropriate forum. The primary judge rejected that argument, found that the Australian court had jurisdiction, and made interim parenting orders intended to facilitate the child’s return to Australia. On appeal, the mother challenged the interim orders on procedural fairness, best interests and factual grounds. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that no error had been demonstrated. It also rejected the mother’s attempt to argue that the child had become habitually resident in Serbia, noting that a parent cannot unilaterally alter a child’s habitual residence and that the mother was bound by the case she had run before the primary judge.
The case concerned an 11-month-old child who was the subject of ongoing care proceedings in England and Wales. The Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs requested a transfer of jurisdiction under Article 9 of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention. The child’s mother, a Norwegian citizen, supported the request, while the child’s guardian and the local authority opposed it. The court accepted that the child was habitually resident in England and Wales and that jurisdiction therefore lay with the English courts under Article 5. The issue was whether the court should accept Norway’s request to assume jurisdiction pursuant to Article 9(3). After balancing factors including delay, the child’s cultural and national identity, the practical consequences of the mother’s imminent return to Norway, and the ability of each jurisdiction to assess the relevant evidence, the court concluded that transfer would better serve the child’s interests. The request was therefore accepted and jurisdiction transferred to Norway.
The child, V, was habitually resident in Malta and was the subject of ongoing welfare proceedings before the Maltese courts. The father sought a transfer of proceedings to England and Wales under Article 9 of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention, arguing that the Maltese proceedings had been significantly delayed and that the English courts could determine the dispute more quickly. The mother opposed the application. The court reviewed the operation of Articles 5, 8 and 9 of the Convention and the principles governing transfers of jurisdiction, including the requirement that a transfer should provide genuine added value and be based on considerations of comity and mutual trust between Contracting States. Although the court accepted that there had been regrettable delay in Malta and that the child faced ongoing difficulties, it concluded that England and Wales was not better placed to determine the child's welfare and dismissed the application.
The proceedings concerned a six-year-old Polish child who had been removed from her mother's care in England following findings of domestic abuse, neglect and parental incapacity. The child's maternal grandmother and step-grandfather, who lived in Poland, were positively assessed by both English and Polish authorities as long-term carers. The court concluded that the child's welfare would be best served by placement with them in Poland. In considering the international dimension of the case, the court examined the operation of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention. It held that the English court had jurisdiction because the child was habitually resident in England, that the resulting child arrangements order would be recognised automatically in Poland under Article 23(1), and that the consultation and consent requirements for cross-border placement under Article 33 had been satisfied. The court therefore made a child arrangements order in favour of the grandparents and authorised the child's move to Poland.
The mother retained two young children in England following an extended visit from Australia. The father sought their return under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. The mother argued that the children had become habitually resident in England and, alternatively, that a return would expose them to a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b) because of alleged domestic abuse and the likely deterioration of her mental health if required to return to Australia. The court rejected both arguments. It held that the children remained habitually resident in Australia at the date of retention and that adequate protective measures were available to address any risks identified by the mother. In assessing the effectiveness of those measures, the court observed that the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention would assist their recognition and enforcement in Australia and noted the availability of urgent protective measures under Article 11 and enforcement mechanisms under Article 26. The children were therefore ordered to return to Australia.
The case concerned a ten-week-old child born in England to a French mother and an English father. Following the breakdown of the parents’ relationship, the father obtained a prohibited steps order preventing the mother from removing the child from England and Wales. The mother argued that both she and the child were habitually resident in France and that the English courts lacked jurisdiction under the 1996 Hague Convention. The court examined the concept of habitual residence under Article 5, including domestic authorities and the CJEU decision in UD v XB. It found that physical presence in a State is required before habitual residence can be established there and rejected the argument that the child could be habitually resident in France despite never having been present there. The court therefore held that the child was habitually resident in England and that the English courts had jurisdiction. However, after considering the welfare issues and the mother’s strong connections with France, the court discharged the prohibited steps order and invited the French courts to accept a transfer of jurisdiction under Article 8 on the basis that France had a substantial connection with the child and was better placed to determine future welfare matters.
Two children habitually resident in Spain travelled to Scotland for a visit with their mother and refused to return to Spain. Their father sought their return under the 1980 Hague Convention. The Lord Ordinary refused the return application after finding that both children objected to returning to Spain and were of sufficient age and maturity for their views to be taken into account. On appeal, the father argued that insufficient weight had been given to an existing Spanish court order granting him sole exercise of parental authority and that the Scottish court had failed properly to consider the recognition and enforcement regime contained in Articles 23–27 of the 1996 Hague Convention. The Inner House rejected those arguments. It held that no recognition application had been made under the 1996 Convention and that, in any event, recognition might have been refused under Article 23(2)(b) because there was no evidence that the children had been afforded an opportunity to be heard in the Spanish proceedings. The court concluded that the first-instance judge had correctly treated the Spanish order as part of the overall balancing exercise under Article 13 and had not impermissibly reviewed its merits. The appeal was therefore refused.