S. v. S. & S. [2009] EWHC 1494 (Fam)
https://www.incadat.com/en/case/825
M., Petitioner 2005 S.L.T. 2 OH
Retention wrongful but return refused; the boy was habitually resident in Ireland at the time of the retention, but his objections to a return were sufficiently cogent that the trial judge exercised her discretion not to make a return order.
Re G. (Abduction: Withdrawal of Proceedings, Acquiescence, Habitual Residence) [2007] EWHC 2807 (Fam)
Retention of the elder child wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions proved to the standard required under the Convention. Retention of the younger child not wrongful as she had only ever been habitually resident in England. Return ordered under common law rules.
Re W. (A Child) [2004] EWCA Civ 1366
Appeal dismissed; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention, however, the return was subject to extensive and stringent conditions, including the obtaining of a mirror order in the High Court of South Africa.
Re S. (Children) (Abduction: Asylum Appeal) [2002] EWCA Civ 843
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; it was in the children’s best interests to return and this was not prevented by UK immigration rules applicable to asylum applicants.
Re G. and A. (Abduction: Consent) [2003] NIFam 16
Removal wrongful but return refused; consent had been established in accordance with the terms of Article 13(1)(a).
Re C. (Abduction: Settlement) (No 2) [2005] 1 FLR 938
Return refused; the child was settled in her new environment and the court exercised its discretion not to make a return order.
Re L. (Abduction: Pending Criminal Proceedings) [1999] 1 FLR 433
Removal wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Re C. (Abduction: Grave Risk of Psychological Harm) [1999] 1 FLR 1145
Appeal allowed, retention wrongful and return ordered; the very high standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been met.
Re V.-B. (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1999] 2 FLR 192
Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; there had not been a breach of actually exercised rights of custody.
