Case Studies On International Child Protection
International child protection law deals with issues such as cross-border child abduction, custody disputes, child trafficking, exploitation, and children’s rights under international treaties. Courts across the world have decided landmark cases interpreting instruments such as:
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980)
The Hague Convention on Protection of Children (1996)
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
Regional human rights systems
Below are six major case studies, each with detailed analysis.
🟩 CASE STUDY 1: Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland (2010, European Court of Human Rights)
Facts
A mother brought her son from Israel to Switzerland without the father’s consent. The father filed for return under the Hague Abduction Convention. Swiss courts ordered the return. The mother appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), claiming that return to Israel would violate the child’s rights and expose him to harm.
Issues
Should the child automatically be returned under the Hague Convention?
How does the best interests of the child under Article 8 ECHR (right to family life) apply?
Held
The ECHR ruled that Switzerland violated Article 8 by ordering return without properly considering the child’s individual circumstances.
Key Principle
Courts must conduct a full best-interests assessment, not simply apply the Hague Convention mechanically.
Significance
This case reshaped the interpretation of the Hague Convention by:
Emphasizing child-centered analysis
Stressing that the child is not an object of parental rights, but a rights-holder
🟩 CASE STUDY 2: Abbott v. Abbott (2010, U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts
A mother relocated from Chile to the U.S. with her child without the father’s consent. The father had a court-ordered ne exeat right (permission required for the child to leave Chile). The mother argued that this was not a “custody right” under the Hague Convention.
Issue
Does a ne exeat right amount to a “right of custody” under the Hague Convention?
Held
The U.S. Supreme Court held yes, a ne exeat right is a right of custody. The child must be returned to Chile.
Legal Principle
This case clarified that:
Custody under international law includes the right to decide the child’s residence, not only physical custody.
Impact
Strengthened the Hague Convention by preventing parents from circumventing custody rights through unilateral relocation.
🟩 CASE STUDY 3: Chafin v. Chafin (2013, U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts
A U.S. father married a Scottish mother. After divorce, the mother returned to Scotland with the child. The U.S. court ordered the child returned to Scotland, and the mother left with the child immediately. The father appealed, but courts declared the appeal “moot” since the child was already gone.
Issue
Is a Hague case moot if the child has already left the country?
Held
The case is not moot. Appeals may continue even after the child is returned abroad.
Principle
Parents can still:
Appeal return orders
Seek reversal or re-return
Significance
Prevents strategic rushing of children out of the jurisdiction to block appeals.
🟩 CASE STUDY 4: S v. M (United Kingdom Supreme Court, 2015)
Facts
A South African mother brought her child to the UK fleeing alleged domestic violence. The father applied for the child’s return under the Hague Convention, denying abuse. Evidence of psychological harm and coercive behavior emerged.
Issue
Does domestic violence against the mother constitute a “grave risk” to the child under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention?
Held
Yes, violence against the mother can create a grave risk to the child.
Principle
The UK Supreme Court stressed:
Child welfare includes the wellbeing of the primary caregiver.
Exposure to domestic violence, even indirectly, is harm to the child.
Impact
This case influenced many jurisdictions in interpreting Article 13(b) more broadly in domestic violence contexts.
🟩 CASE STUDY 5: X v. Latvia (2013, Grand Chamber, ECHR)
Facts
A Latvian mother fled from Australia to Latvia with her child, claiming domestic violence. The Latvian courts ordered return under the Hague Convention. She appealed to the ECHR.
Issue
Did Latvia adequately examine the risks to the child under Article 13(b) before ordering return?
Held
No. Latvia violated Article 8 ECHR by failing to consider:
Domestic violence allegations
Psychological assessments
Impact on the child’s wellbeing
Principle
Domestic violence claims must be examined carefully and individually, not dismissed superficially.
Significance
Strengthened protection for abducting parents fleeing abuse and their children.
🟩 CASE STUDY 6: The Indian case – Surya Vadanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015, Supreme Court of India)
Facts
Two children were taken from the UK to India by their mother. The father sought return under UK court orders. Indian courts traditionally emphasize parens patriae (the child’s welfare over foreign court orders).
Issues
Should Indian courts automatically follow foreign courts?
How to balance welfare with the doctrine of comity?
Held
Indian courts must:
Give “grave consideration” to foreign custody orders
But are not compelled to follow them blindly
If the child is well-settled in India, courts may refuse return.
Legal Principle
The child’s welfare remains supreme, but international comity and the Hague principles must also be respected.
Impact
This case became a leading authority in India on international child abduction.
🟦 Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Issue | Core Holding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neulinger v. Switzerland | ECHR | Best interests under Hague Convention | Full welfare assessment required |
| Abbott v. Abbott | U.S. Supreme Court | Definition of custody | Ne exeat right = custody |
| Chafin v. Chafin | U.S. Supreme Court | Mootness in Hague cases | Appeals remain valid after child returns |
| S v. M | UK Supreme Court | Domestic violence | DV against mother = grave risk to child |
| X v. Latvia | ECHR | Risk assessment | Must fully examine DV allegations |
| Surya Vadanan | India SC | Comity vs. welfare | Welfare is paramount, comity important |
RELATED Blog
comments