23 Dec 2024
The mother failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities and by clear and cogent evidence, that the father either consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the child's permanent relocation to Hong Kong; the evidence relied upon was equivocal and capable of multiple interpretations; therefore the retention in Hong Kong was wrongful and a return order was mandated under the Convention.
22 Aug 2022
The court has jurisdiction under Cap.179 s.48D(2) and Cap.192 s.19(1); the child was habitually resident in Hong Kong; no grave risk of physical or psychological harm was established and the child, aged five, is too young to have a determinative objection; on the paramount consideration of the child's welfare the return and non-removal order was necessary and justified; therefore the application for return and non-removal was granted.
3 Jun 2021
The court found on the balance of probabilities that the children were habitually resident in France immediately prior to retention, the mother's unilateral retention on 17 February 2021 was wrongful under Article 3, the grave risk exception under Article 13(b) was not made out, the gateway for the children's objections was satisfied but, exercising its discretion and balancing best interests, the court ordered return to France subject to specified protective measures and undertakings; return to occur within 28 days.
17 Jan 2020
The court found that the mother and child did not acquire the necessary degree of stability or integration in the USA by 8 October 2019; the mother's purpose in going to the USA on 30 June 2019 was temporary; therefore there was no wrongful retention under Article 3 and, alternatively, the 28 June 2019 Note evidenced consent under Article 13(a) so the return order was refused; the originating summons was dismissed.