Rights of Custody – Art. 3
The mother claimed among other pleas that a removal was wrongful if it occurred in breach of a right of custody granted by the law of the State of the child’s habitual residence immediately before its removal. But while the Court of Appeal had held that the child’s habitual residence was in Germany in August 2010 (which the mother in fact denied but on which the Supreme Court did not rule), it had failed to seek to determine on whom German law conferred custody of a child born out of wedlock and whose father had acknowledged paternity after a delay.
The Supreme Court accepted this plea. Referring to Article 3 and pointing out its contents almost in full, the Supreme Court ruled that by failing to seek to determine whether the father, under German law, had a right of custody within the meaning of the Hague Convention of 1980 on child abduction, the Court of Appeal had failed to provide a legal basis for its ruling.
Author of the summary: Aude Fiorini, United Kingdom