Cross-border relocation of a child can become a complex legal dispute when one parent takes the child to another country without the other parent’s consent or refuses to return the child after an agreed temporary trip. In such a situation, the first legal question is usually not which parent can offer better living conditions. It is necessary to determine where the child was habitually resident, whether the removal or retention was wrongful, and which international mechanism is available to seek the child’s return.
For many cases, the key legal instrument is the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Its purpose is not to decide which parent should ultimately have custody or where the child should permanently live. Its primary function is to secure the prompt return of a child who has been wrongfully removed from, or retained away from, the state of the child’s habitual residence.
The Convention does not apply automatically to every international family dispute. If it is in force between Ukraine and the state where the child is located, a special return procedure may be available through Central Authorities and the competent court or other authority in the state where the child is present. If the Convention does not operate between the two states, the legal route is different and may involve other international treaties, jurisdictional rules, domestic family proceedings, and recognition or enforcement of an existing judgment abroad.
When is a child’s removal abroad considered wrongful
Under the Hague Convention, the expression “international child abduction” is a civil-law concept. It does not mean that every such case necessarily involves a criminal offence by one of the parents.
For the Convention to apply, it is generally necessary to establish that, immediately before the removal or retention, the child was habitually resident in one state and that the actions of the other parent breached rights of custody that were actually exercised, or would have been exercised but for the removal or retention.
The removal itself may be wrongful. For example, one parent may unilaterally relocate the child to another country in breach of the other parent’s custody rights.
In many cases, however, the initial trip is lawful. A child may travel abroad for holidays, medical treatment or another agreed temporary period, but one parent later refuses to return the child when that period ends. In that situation, the legal issue may be wrongful retention rather than wrongful removal.
This is why the chronology matters. It is necessary to determine what exactly was agreed, how long the child was supposed to remain abroad, whether permanent relocation was ever consented to, and at what point the other parent clearly objected to the child remaining abroad.
Why the child’s habitual residence matters
The Hague Convention does not determine the return mechanism solely by reference to the nationality of the child or the parents. The central concept is the child’s habitual residence immediately before the alleged wrongful removal or retention.
Habitual residence is determined from the factual circumstances of the child’s life. Relevant factors may include the length and stability of residence in a particular country, school or kindergarten attendance, medical care, social environment, family connections and the overall centre of the child’s day-to-day life.
A child may therefore be a Ukrainian citizen while being habitually resident in Poland, the Czech Republic, Germany or another state. Conversely, foreign nationality does not by itself prevent Ukraine from being the child’s habitual residence.
We discuss the relevant criteria in more detail in our separate publication on the child’s habitual residence abroad and international jurisdiction. In a Hague return case, habitual residence is especially important because it helps identify the state with which the child was genuinely connected before the removal and the state to which the return mechanism may point.
How the Hague Convention child return mechanism works
The 1980 Hague Convention established a system of cooperation between states dealing with wrongful removal and retention of children.
Each state operating under the Convention designates a Central Authority. In Ukraine, this function is performed by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. Central Authorities exchange applications and supporting documents, assist in locating children, promote voluntary return or an amicable resolution where possible, and facilitate the commencement of judicial or other competent proceedings if voluntary return cannot be achieved.
It is important to distinguish the role of the Central Authority from the role of the court. The Ministry of Justice does not itself issue a final order requiring the child to be returned. If voluntary return does not occur and the case proceeds to litigation, the decision is made by the competent court or other authority in the state where the child is located.
For example, if a child is wrongfully removed from Ukraine to another country, the return application will generally be decided by the competent authority in the country where the child is physically present. If a child is brought from another state into Ukraine, the return case may be heard by a Ukrainian court.
The Convention therefore does not create a separate international court. It creates a common legal framework within which the Central Authorities and national courts of the relevant states cooperate.
When does the Convention apply between Ukraine and another state
Once the state where the child is located has been identified, one of the first legal checks is whether the 1980 Hague Convention is actually in force between that state and Ukraine.
It is not always enough to see that both states appear among the parties to the Convention. For states that joined the Convention by accession, it may also be necessary to verify whether Ukraine accepted that accession and from what date the Convention became effective in the bilateral relationship.
This can make a practical difference. Two countries may both be parties to the same international convention, but the child return mechanism may still depend on the legal status of accession between those two particular states.
The child’s age must also be checked. The Convention ceases to apply once the child reaches the age of 16.
Before preparing a return application, it is therefore necessary to establish at least three things: where the child was habitually resident, where the child is now, and whether the Convention was in force between the relevant states at the time the dispute arose.
If a child has been taken from Ukraine: where to apply and what happens next
If the child was habitually resident in Ukraine before the removal and is now located in another state, the applicant may use the Central Authority mechanism.
An application for the child’s return may be submitted to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. Depending on the circumstances, an application may also be made to the Central Authority of the state where the child is located. The Convention does not prevent an applicant from applying directly to a competent court or other authority in that state, although the procedure for direct court access is governed by the law of that country.
For a Ukrainian applicant, the route through the Ministry of Justice usually begins with preparation of a return application. The application should explain the circumstances of the removal or retention, identify the child and the other parent, state the country and, if known, the address where the child is located, describe the applicant’s custody rights and explain why Ukraine was the child’s habitual residence.
Supporting documents should confirm those facts. Depending on the case, they may include the child’s birth certificate, documents relating to parental rights, court orders or parental agreements, evidence of the child’s residence and education in Ukraine, correspondence about the purpose and duration of the trip, and other relevant material. The precise documentation will depend on the facts and on the requirements of the state receiving the application.
Once the materials are received, the Ministry of Justice assesses whether the application falls within the scope of the Convention and, where appropriate, transmits it to the Central Authority of the state where the child is believed to be located.
The foreign Central Authority then acts under the Convention and its domestic law. It may verify the child’s location, contact the relevant authorities and the person with whom the child is staying, and seek to facilitate a voluntary return or an agreed resolution.
If the child is returned voluntarily, court proceedings may not be necessary.
If there is no voluntary return, the matter usually proceeds to the judicial or other competent procedure available in that state. The authority there will determine whether the Convention applies, whether the removal or retention was wrongful, and whether any recognised exception to return has been established.
The Ministry route and the court route should therefore not be viewed as two mutually exclusive options. In a typical case, they may form consecutive stages of the same process: transmission of the application between Central Authorities, an attempt at voluntary return, and, if that fails, proceedings before the competent authority in the state where the child is located.
If it is not known which country the child is in
A particularly difficult situation arises when it is clear that the child has been taken abroad, but there is no reliable information about the country to which the child was taken or where the child is currently staying.
In that situation, the application cannot simply be transmitted to a specific foreign Central Authority because there is no confirmed destination state. The first task is therefore to identify at least the country where the child is likely to be located. Only after that can the return procedure be directed to the appropriate jurisdiction.
In practical terms, the Ministry of Justice should be provided with as much information as possible that may help trace the child’s route. This may include information about the other parent’s citizenship and identity documents, known foreign addresses, relatives and close contacts, place of employment, telephone numbers, email addresses, vehicles, possible schools or nurseries, previous countries of residence, ticket or booking information, and the date of border crossing. Even indirect information from correspondence may be useful, such as references to a particular city, school, workplace or family member.
It may also be important to establish through which border crossing point the child left Ukraine and which travel documents were used. Where there is a lawful basis to obtain such information, border-crossing data may help identify the direction of travel, although it will not always establish the child’s final destination.
If there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child is in a particular country but the precise address is unknown, the situation is more manageable. The application may be transmitted to the Central Authority of that state, and the child’s exact location may then be investigated through the mechanisms available under that country’s law. Depending on the jurisdiction, those mechanisms may involve police, migration authorities, population or residence registers, schools, healthcare institutions or other public databases.
If even the country remains unknown, all realistic leads should be examined in parallel. For example, if the other parent holds the citizenship of a particular state, owns property there, has close relatives there, previously lived there or had discussed moving there, that country may be an obvious priority for further verification.
Once the state where the child is located has been identified, the legal strategy moves to the next stage: determining whether the 1980 Hague Convention operates between that state and Ukraine, identifying the competent Central Authority and, if voluntary return does not occur, preparing the appropriate court proceedings.
In such cases, the immediate practical priority is therefore not necessarily filing a lawsuit, but first identifying the state where the child is located and preserving every piece of information that may help reconstruct the child’s route.
If a child has been brought from another country to Ukraine
A different scenario arises when the child was habitually resident abroad but one parent brought the child to Ukraine and then refused to return the child.
The applicant abroad may use the Central Authority mechanism by applying through the Central Authority of the child’s previous state of habitual residence or by contacting the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. The Convention also does not exclude a direct application to the competent Ukrainian court where that procedural route is appropriate.
Once the materials arrive in Ukraine, the child’s actual location must first be established. If the location is unknown, the Ministry of Justice may cooperate with the relevant Ukrainian authorities to determine where the child is staying. The circumstances of the removal, the applicant’s documents and the conditions for applying the Convention are then assessed.
The next stage is an attempt to resolve the matter without compulsory court-ordered return. The person with whom the child is staying may be invited to return the child voluntarily or to reach another lawful arrangement.
If there is no voluntary return, the matter proceeds to court in Ukraine.
In such a case, the Ukrainian court does not conduct a full custody trial to determine which parent could provide the better long-term home. The issue is narrower: whether the removal or retention was wrongful under the Convention and whether there is a recognised legal ground for refusing return.
The applicant must establish where the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal, what rights of custody the applicant had and whether those rights were actually exercised. The person retaining the child in Ukraine may, in turn, rely on recognised exceptions, such as consent to the move, non-exercise of custody rights or a grave risk to the child in the event of return.
If the court orders return, the next stage is voluntary or compulsory enforcement and the actual transfer of the child for return to the relevant state. It is therefore important during the litigation itself to consider not only the legal basis for return, but also how the resulting order can realistically be implemented.
What evidence matters in a child return case
Evidence should be collected by reference to the legal questions the court must answer, rather than on the assumption that the largest possible file is always the strongest one.
To establish habitual residence, the parties may rely on evidence showing the child’s real day-to-day life before the removal: education, healthcare, housing, social environment and stable family connections.
Where the dispute concerns failure to return the child after an agreed temporary trip, communications between the parents may be particularly important. For example, a message stating that the child is travelling only for the summer and must return before the school year begins may carry very different legal weight from a general consent to travel that does not identify the purpose or duration of the stay.
The applicant must also establish the relevant custody rights. Depending on the legal system involved, those rights may arise directly by operation of law, from a court order, an agreement or another legally recognised instrument.
The key issue is therefore the connection between each piece of evidence and a specific requirement of the Convention, rather than the sheer volume of documents submitted.
What changes if the application is not made immediately
Time has a specific legal significance in international return cases.
Where proceedings are commenced before one year has elapsed from the wrongful removal or retention, the Convention is based on the principle of prompt return unless the court finds one of the recognised exceptions.
If more than one year has already passed by the time proceedings are commenced, the court may additionally consider whether the child has become settled in the new environment. In that context, the child’s schooling, social connections, adaptation, stability of residence and other factual circumstances may become relevant.
The important point is not how much time has passed before the final judgment is issued, but when the return proceedings were commenced.
This distinction was significant in case No. 295/4672/24, considered by the Supreme Court on 29 July 2026. The return procedure had been initiated within one year, so the child’s later integration in Ukraine could not be treated as an independent basis for refusal under the relevant part of Article 12 merely because the litigation itself lasted longer.
Delay in the court proceedings should therefore not give an advantage to the parent who wrongfully removed or retained the child where the applicant acted in time.
When can a court refuse to return the child
The Convention provides limited exceptions to the general principle of return, but each exception requires specific evidence.
For example, the respondent may argue that the applicant was not actually exercising the relevant custody rights or had consented to, or subsequently acquiesced in, the child’s removal or continued stay in the new state.
Another important exception concerns a grave risk that return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
In appropriate circumstances, the court may also take account of the child’s own objections where the child has reached an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to give weight to those views.
A general argument that “the child is better off here” is not enough. A Hague return case should not turn into a comparison of the parents’ homes, incomes, schools or general financial circumstances.
Where grave risk is alleged, the court must determine what the risk actually is, what evidence supports it and whether protective measures available in the state of return could remove or substantially reduce that risk.
What recent Supreme Court practice shows
In case No. 295/4672/24, the Supreme Court in July 2026 considered an application for the return of a child from Ukraine to the Czech Republic. One of the central issues was the alleged grave risk to the child’s psychological wellbeing.
The courts examined psychological assessments, the child’s health, emotional relationships and the concrete consequences of a possible return. The Supreme Court upheld the ultimate refusal to order return on the basis of the established risk, while correcting the reasoning concerning the child’s settlement after one year because the return proceedings had been commenced in time.
In case No. 511/4471/24, considered by the Supreme Court in October 2026, the dispute concerned the return of a child to Poland. The Supreme Court emphasised that allegations of risk to the child must be properly examined and that any reliance on the Convention’s exceptions must be adequately reasoned rather than replaced by general statements about the child’s best interests.
The practical lesson from these cases is that the outcome does not depend merely on citing a particular provision of the Convention. It depends on whether the party can prove specific facts that fall within the relevant exception.
Can a parent simultaneously bring a case about the child’s residence
This is one of the most significant procedural risks in cross-border family disputes.
If, after wrongfully moving the child, one parent immediately brings an ordinary case in the new country seeking to determine the child’s residence, this does not automatically mean that the courts of that country have international jurisdiction to determine parental responsibility on the merits.
One of the purposes of the 1980 Convention is to prevent a parent from creating a more favourable forum simply by moving the child across a border.
The 1996 Hague Convention on parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children may also be relevant because it deals with jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement in relation to parental responsibility and protective measures.
It is therefore necessary to distinguish two different questions: whether the child should be returned following a wrongful removal or retention, and which authority has jurisdiction to determine the child’s long-term residence or parental responsibility.
Those questions are not always decided by the same court or in the same proceedings.
What if the Hague Convention does not apply between the states
Where the 1980 Convention does not operate between Ukraine and the state where the child is located, there is no single international return procedure equivalent to the Hague mechanism. That does not mean, however, that there is no legal route at all.
The first step is to identify what legal instruments exist between Ukraine and the relevant state. This requires checking other international treaties, including rules concerning parental responsibility, jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments.
The next question is which country’s courts have jurisdiction to determine the dispute on the merits.
If international jurisdiction lies with the Ukrainian courts, one possible route may be to obtain a decision in Ukraine and then seek its recognition and enforcement in the country where the child is located. Whether this is available, and under what procedure, depends on the international treaties between the states and the domestic law of the state where enforcement is sought.
If the competent court is instead the court of the state where the child is located, the appropriate claim or application must be brought there under that country’s family and procedural law. Ukrainian documents, existing judgments, evidence of parental rights and other materials may then be used in accordance with the rules of that foreign court.
A separate situation arises where a judgment concerning parental responsibility or the child’s residence already exists. In that case, the primary issue may not be obtaining a new judgment, but whether the existing judgment can be recognised and enforced in the state where the child is located.
The practical sequence in a non-Hague case is therefore different: first determine international jurisdiction, then select the available judicial remedy, and at the same time assess how any resulting judgment could actually be enforced in the country where the child is present.
These cases often require coordination between a Ukrainian lawyer and counsel in the relevant foreign jurisdiction so that the client does not obtain a judgment that is legally valid in one country but practically unenforceable in another.
How the 1996 Hague Convention differs from the 1980 Convention
The two Hague Conventions are connected, but they perform different functions.
The 1980 Convention primarily establishes a special mechanism for the return of a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained.
The 1996 Convention addresses different issues to a significant extent: which state has jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility and child protection, what law applies, and how protective measures may be recognised and enforced in other states.
The 1996 Convention should therefore not be treated simply as a “backup return mechanism” whenever the 1980 Convention does not apply. Its relevance must be assessed separately in light of the particular dispute and the treaty relationship between the states concerned.
What happens after a court orders the child’s return
A favourable court order does not necessarily mean that the dispute has ended in practice.
If the parent with whom the child is staying complies voluntarily, arrangements are made for the child’s handover and return.
If the order is not complied with, compulsory enforcement procedures may become necessary under the law of the state in which the order must be implemented. This is why, even when formulating the original legal claim, it is important to consider whether the final order will clearly define the obligation to return the child and whether it can be implemented in practice.
Cross-border cases may also raise practical questions about the child’s travel documents, transport arrangements, the person to whom the child is to be handed over, safe conditions for return and cooperation between authorities in the two states.
A legal strategy should therefore not end with obtaining a court order. The practical route to enforcement should be considered from the beginning.
Where to start in a specific case
If the child has already been moved across a border or has not been returned after an agreed trip, the first step is to classify the situation correctly.
It is necessary to establish the child’s previous habitual residence, the point at which any wrongful retention began, the nature of the relevant parental rights, the state where the child is currently located and the international instruments operating between that state and Ukraine.
Only then can it be determined whether the case should proceed through the Hague Central Authority mechanism, through litigation in the state where the child is located, through a jurisdictional analysis, or through recognition and enforcement of an existing judgment.
In such cases, legal assistance in an international family dispute can be particularly important at the initial stage. Choosing the wrong country, court or legal remedy can result not only in lost time, but also in parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions.
Where the issue is not wrongful removal but the lawful determination of the child’s future residence with one parent abroad, this is a different category of dispute. We discuss that situation separately in our publication on a child living with the father abroad.
Conclusion
In international child abduction cases, the first task is to identify the correct legal mechanism before choosing a specific court action.
If the 1980 Hague Convention applies between Ukraine and the state where the child is located, a special return procedure may be used through the Central Authorities, an attempt at voluntary resolution and, where necessary, proceedings before the competent authority in the state where the child is present.
If the Convention does not apply, the analysis must instead address international jurisdiction, other applicable treaties, whether proceedings should be brought in Ukraine or abroad, and how any resulting judgment can later be recognised and enforced.
If a child has been taken abroad without the required consent, has not been returned after a temporary trip, or has been brought to Ukraine from another country, the lawyers of JSC “Grandliga” can assess the circumstances, identify the applicable international mechanism, analyse jurisdiction and evidence, and develop a legal strategy for the child’s return and the further protection of parental rights.
