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 11 to 20 of 54 cases
| Action | H96-CB Ref | Court | Country | Date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H96-2024-000022 | Cour de cassation, Première chambre civile (France) | France | 10 Jul 2024 | Supreme / Highest Court | |
| H96-2024-000023 | Cour de cassation (France), Première chambre civile | France | 10 Jul 2024 | Supreme / Highest Court | |
| H96-2024-000007 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division (appeal against registration and enforcement of a foreign measure) | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 9 Jul 2024 | Appellate Court | |
| H96-2024-000001 | Family Court (England and Wales), sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 28 Jun 2024 | First instance | |
| H96-2024-000009 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 12 Jun 2024 | First instance | |
| H96-2024-000008 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 24 May 2024 | First instance | |
| H96-2024-000003 | Family Court (England and Wales), sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 23 May 2024 | First instance | |
| H96-2024-000005 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 9 May 2024 | First instance | |
| H96-2024-000010 | Family Court (England and Wales), sitting at Liverpool | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 18 Apr 2024 | First instance | |
| H96-2024-000011 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 12 Apr 2024 | First instance |
The parties and their two children lived in India until July 2022, when the father relocated with the children to France and remained there without the mother's consent. The mother sought an order requiring the children's return to India, relying on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention. The Cour de cassation held that Articles 4 and 11 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are not directly applicable in French domestic law and cannot provide a legal basis for a return order. The court further held that Articles 7 and 50 of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention, which regulate jurisdiction in cases of wrongful removal and the relationship between the 1996 and 1980 Hague Conventions, apply only between Contracting States. As India is not a Contracting State, those provisions could not be relied upon to obtain the children's return. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
The mother sought the return of her child from France to Switzerland following an alleged wrongful removal. After the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention ceased to apply because the child had reached the age of 16, she relied on the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention as an independent basis for a return order. The Cour de cassation held that, while the 1996 Convention's provisions on jurisdiction, cooperation, recognition and enforcement may be used to facilitate the effective return of a child, none of its provisions creates an autonomous cause of action for return. The court therefore rejected the mother's claim and confirmed that the 1996 Convention does not replace the return mechanism established by the 1980 Convention.
A 16-year-old child appealed against the recognition and enforcement in England and Wales of Irish Special Care Orders made by the High Court of Ireland. The orders authorised his placement in special care accommodation in Ireland. The child argued that recognition should be refused under Article 23(2)(d) of the 1996 Hague Convention because enforcement would be contrary to English public policy and inconsistent with his best interests, particularly in light of his strongly expressed opposition to returning to Ireland. The High Court reviewed the recognition and enforcement provisions of the Convention and considered comparative authorities under Brussels IIa and the 1993 Hague Adoption Convention. The court emphasised that the public policy exception is to be interpreted very restrictively and can only be invoked where recognition would violate fundamental principles of the requested State. Having examined the Irish proceedings, the court found that the Irish judge had carefully considered the child's wishes, welfare and vulnerabilities and had reached a reasoned conclusion that return to Ireland was in his best interests. The circumstances therefore fell far short of the exceptional threshold required by Article 23(2)(d), and the appeal was dismissed.
A mother wrongfully removed her 22 month old child who was habitually resident in England and Wales, whilst in the middle of child protection proceedings. The local authorities in England had begun proceedings to place the child in adoptive care following inadequate parenting assessments. The court held that the child had subsequently acquired habitual residence in Poland. However, the English court retained jurisdiction under Article 7 of the 1996 Hague Convention. The care proceedings had vested rights of custody in the English court; the mother's unilateral removal of the child without the court's sanction was in breach of those rights; and the court had been exercising those rights at the time of removal. The court had not subsequently acquiesced in the removal. MacDonald J rejected the proposition that the court could thereafter actively acquiesce under Article 7(1)(a) for the purpose of surrendering its retained jurisdiction, holding that a transfer of jurisdiction should instead be pursued through Articles 8 and 9. As Poland was better placed to assess the child's best interests, the English proceedings were stayed and a request was made under Article 8 for Poland to assume jurisdiction.
The case involved a dispute over the jurisdiction of the English courts to make a return order for a child who was taken to Pakistan by her mother without the father's consent. The father had initiated proceedings in the Nottingham Family Court for a Child Arrangements Order before the child's removal. After the mother left the UK with the child in April 2021, the father applied to the High Court for a return order under the inherent jurisdiction. The legal issues here were whether the English court had jurisdiction to make a return order under the 1996 Hague Convention or the Family Law Act 1986, and whether the inherent jurisdiction could be exercised to order the child's return to the UK. The court determined that C was habitually resident in England until her removal in April 2021. However, by the time the father applied for the return order in April 2023, C had been living in Pakistan for two years and had become settled there. Consequently, the court found that C was habitually resident in Pakistan by April 2023. Given that C was habitually resident in Pakistan, the court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction under Article 5 of the 1996 Hague Convention or the Family Law Act 1986 to make a return order
This case involved a father's application for the summary return of his 12-year-old son, N, to Ukraine under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The mother opposed the return, citing concerns related to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine while the father presented evidence of alternative locations in Ukraine that were distant from the conflict zones, which he argued were safe for the child. Furthermore the father offered to relocate to a relatively safe town which would also allow for contact between the child and his mother. The primary legal issue was whether returning N to Ukraine would expose him to a "grave risk of harm" or place him in an "intolerable situation," as per Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention. The court held that returning to Ukraine, in a safer location, would not amount to a grave risk.
Care proceedings concerning four children who had lived in Austria before being removed by their father and brought to England in June 2023. The children had been living together in foster care in England for approximately ten months when the court determined jurisdiction. Applying Article 5 of the 1996 Hague Convention, the court conducted a detailed assessment of habitual residence and held that all four children had acquired habitual residence in England and Wales. Although their immigration status remained uncertain and their removal from Austria had disrupted longstanding family and social connections there, the stability of their foster placement, restoration of their life together as a sibling group, acquisition of English, school attendance, friendships and relationships with their carers demonstrated sufficient integration in a social and family environment. The court therefore had substantive jurisdiction under Article 5. The court also considered the interaction between proceedings under the 1996 Convention and the children's outstanding asylum claims, provisionally concluding that immigration and asylum law did not prevent the court from implementing a future welfare decision returning the children to Austria before determination of those claims. The question whether the children should in fact be returned to Austria was left for later determination.
The parents of a two-year-old child, Y, applied under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court for an order intended to secure her return from Sweden to England and Wales. Y had been taken into care by the Swedish authorities and had remained in Sweden after her parents moved to England. She had never been physically present in England and Wales. The court held that jurisdiction was governed principally by Article 5 of the 1996 Hague Convention and depended upon whether Y was habitually resident in England and Wales. Although the parents argued that their intention had always been to bring Y to England and that their own integration here should be attributed to their young child, MacDonald J rejected that argument. Y no longer shared her parents' social and family environment, but was living with substitute carers in Sweden, where her needs were being met. She had no practical connection or durable ties with England and Wales. The court therefore held that Y was not habitually resident in England and Wales and dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction.
Care proceedings concerning a young child born in Hungary to Hungarian parents. The child had been the subject of protective measures and extensive child-welfare involvement in Hungary before the parents brought him to England in 2023. The English local authority subsequently commenced care proceedings. The court first considered whether the child had acquired habitual residence in England and Wales for the purposes of Article 5 of the 1996 Hague Convention. Although the child had spent only a relatively short period in England before proceedings were commenced and retained substantial connections with Hungary, the Hungarian authorities had terminated their protective proceedings following the family's move abroad and the mother intended to remain in England. By a fine balance, the court found that the child had become habitually resident in England and Wales and that jurisdiction was therefore founded under Article 5. The court nevertheless held that the Hungarian authorities were better placed to assess the child's best interests, given their extensive previous involvement, the evidence and assessments already available there, the parents' language, the child's Hungarian heritage and family connections, and the prospect of swifter proceedings. A request was therefore made under Article 8 for Hungary to assume jurisdiction.
Care proceedings concerning a seven-month-old child whose maternal aunt, resident in Switzerland, had been identified as the only family member with a positive initial viability assessment as a potential long-term carer. The local authority initially sought to arrange a full kinship assessment through Children and Families Across Borders, but difficulties arose because the Swiss authorities maintained that a legally effective assessment could only be undertaken through the competent Swiss authorities pursuant to the 1996 Hague Convention. An Article 33 process was consequently pursued through the Central Authorities. The Swiss authorities advised that the assessment would be undertaken by the competent cantonal authority and could take six to nine months, with uncertainty as to when it would commence. The court held that this timescale was incompatible with the needs of the very young child. Although discontinuing the assessment removed the possibility of placement with the maternal aunt and carried significant cultural and family disadvantages, the likely delay outweighed those considerations. The direction for assessment was therefore discharged so that the proceedings could progress promptly towards a permanent placement..