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 21 to 30 of 54 cases
| Action | H96-CB Ref | Court | Country | Date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H96-2024-000006 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 19 Mar 2024 | First instance | |
| H96-2024-000002 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 29 Feb 2024 | First instance | |
| H96-2024-000004 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 16 Jan 2024 | First instance | |
| H96-2023-000007 | High Court of Justice (Northern Ireland) Family Division | United Kingdom - Northern Ireland | 29 Nov 2023 | First instance | |
| H96-2023-000003 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 1 Nov 2023 | First instance | |
| H96-2023-000004 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 19 Oct 2023 | First instance | |
| H96-2023-000002 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 2 Aug 2023 | First instance | |
| H96-2023-000006 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 23 Jun 2023 | First instance | |
| H96-2023-000008 | Cour de cassation, première chambre civile | France | 1 Jun 2023 | Supreme / Highest Court | |
| H96-2023-000001 | Family Court (England and Wales), High Court Judge sitting in the Family Court | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 10 Feb 2023 | First instance |
The proceedings arose following the unlawful removal of two children from New Zealand to England. After the applicant withdrew his application for the children's summary return under the 1980 Hague Convention, he sought recognition under Article 16 of the 1996 Hague Convention of parental responsibility allegedly conferred upon him by a New Zealand court as the children's stepfather. The principal issue was whether Article 16(3) preserved parental responsibility arising through judicial intervention following a change of the children's habitual residence. The court held that Article 16 must be interpreted as a coherent whole and that paragraph (3) applies only to parental responsibility arising by operation of law under paragraphs (1) and (2), not to parental responsibility conferred by judicial or administrative decision. The application was therefore dismissed.
The proceedings concerned two children of a British father and Thai mother following the children's residence in England and subsequent retention in Thailand. The principal issue was whether the English court retained jurisdiction after the child may have acquired habitual residence in Thailand, which is not a Contracting State to the 1996 Hague Convention. Williams J reviewed the relationship between Articles 5 and 7 of the Convention, the residual jurisdiction preserved by the Family Law Act 1986, and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The court held that even if Convention jurisdiction under Article 5 ceased following a move to a non-Contracting State, the English court retained jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1986 based on the child's habitual residence when proceedings were issued. The judgment also discusses, without deciding, whether Article 7 applies where the child acquires habitual residence in a non-Contracting State, identifying the issue as unresolved in English law.
Proceedings concerning a child who had been wrongfully removed by his father from England and Wales to Germany during ongoing litigation. The English court retained jurisdiction pursuant to Article 7 of the 1996 Hague Convention. The principal issue was whether jurisdiction retained following wrongful removal could nevertheless be transferred to Germany under Article 8. MacDonald J held that it could. Article 7 does not create a freestanding basis of jurisdiction; rather, it preserves the jurisdiction based on habitual residence under Article 5 until the conditions in Article 7(1) are satisfied. Accordingly, the State retaining jurisdiction remains a State having jurisdiction under Article 5 for the purposes of Article 8. The judge declined to follow the contrary interpretation adopted in A (A Child) (Abduction: Jurisdiction: 1996 Hague Convention) [2021] EWHC 581 (Fam). It further emphasised that the deterrence of child abduction, although relevant, does not create an absolute bar to transfer: the decisive Article 8 questions remain whether the other State is better placed to assess the child’s best interests and whether transfer is in the child’s best interests. On the facts, Germany was better placed to assess the child’s best interests: the child had lived there for approximately fifteen months, had strong connections with Germany, his current schooling, health care and social environment were there, and he had strongly expressed a wish to remain. The court therefore requested Germany to assume jurisdiction under Article 8.
Private law proceedings in Northern Ireland concerning a four-year-old child, GE, who had been living with her grandmother in the Republic of Ireland. The grandmother applied in Northern Ireland for a residence order with the mother's support. The court held that jurisdiction under the 1996 Hague Convention had to be considered before resort could be had to the residual jurisdictional rules in the Family Law Act 1986. Following the approach adopted by the Court of Appeal in London Borough of Hackney v P, McFarland J held that primary jurisdiction should be determined by reference to the child's habitual residence at the date proceedings were commenced, while the court must also be satisfied that jurisdiction continues to exist at the final hearing. At the date of the application, GE had spent only about five weeks living solely with her grandmother in the Republic of Ireland and had not acquired sufficient integration there to displace her habitual residence in Northern Ireland. The court also found that, despite nine months in the grandmother's care by the final hearing, GE had still not acquired habitual residence in the Republic of Ireland. The grandmother did not have parental responsibility, significant aspects of the child's health care and family life remained connected with Northern Ireland, and the placement was being managed by the Northern Irish Trust. The court therefore retained jurisdiction, declined to transfer jurisdiction under Article 8, and granted the grandmother a residence order.
Proceedings following the dismissal of a mother's 1980 Hague Convention application for the return of two children to France. The children subsequently sought declarations that they were habitually resident in England and Wales and that the English courts had jurisdiction over matters of parental responsibility. Applying the 1996 Hague Convention, the court held that the relevant date for assessing habitual residence and Article 7 jurisdiction was the date on which the declaration proceedings were commenced, namely 22 August 2023, rather than the later hearing date. Both children had by then acquired habitual residence in England and Wales. In relation to X, the mother's prior acquiescence in the wrongful removal satisfied Article 7(1)(a), with the result that France had lost its retained jurisdiction. In relation to Y, the court held that Article 7(1)(b) was satisfied: Y had been resident in England for at least one year after the mother knew of his whereabouts, was settled in his environment, and no return application remained pending. The court also considered Article 50 of the 1996 Convention and Article 16 of the 1980 Convention in determining the relationship between the two instruments. It declared that the English courts had jurisdiction to determine all issues relating to the children's welfare, custody, access and parental responsibility.
Proceedings concerning a child born in Spain whose birth had been registered using a stolen passport and a false identity. As a result of that registration, D, a person with no biological relationship to the child, acquired parental responsibility by operation of Spanish law. The child's biological father, C, had used D's stolen identity while evading law enforcement and was later convicted in England of serious sexual offences against children. The child subsequently became habitually resident in England and Wales. The court considered the effect of Article 16(3) of the 1996 Hague Convention, under which parental responsibility existing under the law of the child's former habitual residence ordinarily subsists following a change of habitual residence. MacDonald J held that, absent Article 22, D's Spanish parental responsibility would continue to subsist in England and Wales. However, applying Spanish law in the particular circumstances would be manifestly contrary to public policy, taking into account the child's best interests. The court therefore applied Article 22 to refuse the law designated by Article 16(3), with the result that D did not hold parental responsibility for A in England and Wales. The court consequently found it unnecessary to determine the mother's alternative arguments under the Children Act 1989, the inherent jurisdiction or the Human Rights Act 1998.
This case concerned proceedings related to three British children who had lived in England throughout their lives before travelling with their father to Somaliland in August 2022. The mother agreed only to a three-month visit but was deceived into signing a document purporting to consent to permanent relocation. The father failed to return the children in October 2022. The court held that the mother had not acquiesced in their permanent removal and that their continued stay in Somaliland amounted to wrongful retention. The principal jurisdictional issue was whether Article 7 of the 1996 Hague Convention applies where the child has been wrongfully removed or retained in a non-Contracting State. Having reviewed conflicting first-instance authorities, the text of Article 7 and the Lagarde Report, the court held that it does. The reference in Article 7 to “another State”, rather than “another Contracting State”, was significant and indicated that Contracting States are required to apply Article 7 whether the child has been taken to a Contracting or non-Contracting State. The English court therefore retained jurisdiction. In the alternative, the court found that the children had not acquired habitual residence in Somaliland and remained habitually resident in England and Wales. Immediate return orders were made, together with protective orders in respect of the daughter concerning forced marriage and FGM.
This case concerned proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention involving a seven-year-old child wrongfully removed by her mother from Portugal to England. It was common ground that the child had been habitually resident in Portugal immediately before removal and that the mother's unilateral relocation breached the father's custody rights. The father commenced return proceedings within one year. The court relied on Article 7 of the 1996 Hague Convention in recognising Portugal's continuing jurisdiction over matters of parental responsibility notwithstanding the child's physical presence in England. The mother's defences under Article 13 of the 1980 Convention were rejected: the child had expressed a preference to remain in England rather than an objection to returning to Portugal, and the alleged risks associated with the father's conduct could be investigated and managed by the Portuguese authorities. A return order was therefore made. The court also considered the possible use of Article 11 of the 1996 Convention to provide urgent protective measures pending determination of the child's longer-term arrangements by the Portuguese court, but adjourned that question to a further hearing.
Following the parents' divorce in France, the mother relocated with the parties' children to Ecuador. The mother argued that the Ecuadorian courts had jurisdiction because the children had become habitually resident there. The French courts nevertheless continued to exercise jurisdiction over parental responsibility proceedings. On appeal, the Cour de cassation confirmed that, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention, the courts of the State of the children's habitual residence immediately prior to the alleged wrongful removal retain jurisdiction until the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(a) or (b) are satisfied. Since the father had not acquiesced in the children's relocation and had initiated return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention within one year of learning their whereabouts, French jurisdiction was preserved. The court therefore upheld the jurisdiction of the French courts to determine issues concerning parental responsibility and the children's residence.
The proceedings concerned two children habitually resident in England and Wales whose maternal grandparents, residing in Greece, had commenced proceedings before the Greek courts seeking contact. The Greek court asserted jurisdiction on the basis of the children's Greek nationality and the anticipated execution of contact orders in Greece, without considering the 1996 Hague Convention. The English court, after judicial liaison with the Greek court through the Hague Judicial Network, held that jurisdiction was governed exclusively by the 1996 Hague Convention. Since the children were habitually resident in England and Wales, Article 5 conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the English courts. The court further rejected the grandparents' application under Article 8 to transfer jurisdiction, holding that although the children possessed Greek nationality (thus satisfying the connecting factor in Article 8(2)(a)), Greece was not better placed to assess their best interests because all relevant welfare evidence was located in England. The court emphasised that the Convention establishes a complete and closed jurisdictional system and that transfer under Article 8 is exceptional.