Top rated Canadian UHNW Hague Convention Child Abduction Lawyers help protect children from the trauma of child abduction and ensure the decision on parenting rights and guardianship occurs in the place where the best evidence and fairest result can occur. MacLean Law’s tier 1 international family lawyers regularly handle Hague and non- Hague child abduction and jurisdictional dispute cases. MacLean Law’s top ranked family lawyers include IAFL ranked lawyers.
Imagine waking up one morning to find your child and spouse gone, with no idea where they are. As terrifying as that is, it is worse still to later find out your spouse has taken your child to another country, thousands of miles away. What can be done? Our Canadian UHNW Hague Convention Child Abduction Lawyers can help you get your child back or stay where they are if allegations of abduction are false or if there is a grave risk upon return. Acting quickly is the mantra.
Canadian UHNW Hague Convention Child Abduction Lawyers Tel: 604 602 9000
We at MacLean Law are proud to announce a significant victory by Jonathan Wai and Sophie Bartholomew in a complex International Child Abduction under the Hague Convention case involving high net worth individuals: Chau v. Tsang, 2026 BCSC 645. Upon our application, the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered that the child be returned home to Hong Kong, after finding he was wrongfully removed and kept in Canada by the mother. This case highlights the critical role of the Hague Convention in protecting children and ensuring their prompt return to their home country.
Vancouver The Hague Convention Against Child Abduction Tel: 604 602 9000
If your child has been taken to another country, the first question is whether that country is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the “Hague Convention”). The Hague Convention is an international treaty designed to protect children from the harmful effects of abduction and retention across international boundaries. It does this by providing a legal mechanism to secure the prompt return of children to their country of habitual residence — the place where the child was living and had established their life before being taken.
Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and many other countries are signatories. If your child has been taken to a country that has not signed the Hague Convention, the legal path can be significantly more difficult and uncertain. But where the Convention applies, it creates a powerful framework for getting your child home.
BC Key Concepts Under the Hague Convention Tel: 604 602 9000
Habitual Residence refers to the country where the child was ordinarily living before the removal. It is not simply about the child’s citizenship or where a parent is from — it is about where the child’s life was actually centered. Courts look at factors like where the child went to school, where the family home was, and how long the child had been living there.
Wrongful Removal occurs when a child is taken from their country of habitual residence in breach of the custody rights of the left-behind parent. If you had the right to be involved in decisions about where your child lives, and your spouse took the child away without your consent, that removal is likely “wrongful” under the Convention. We note as well that this applies, even if you and your spouse were not yet separated at the time, as well as applying after you are separated.
Once a wrongful removal is established, the child must be returned, unless the absconding parent can prove a genuine exception to the rule.
Grave Harm The Exceptions: When Return Can Be Refused Tel: 604 602 9000
The Hague Convention does include a limited number of exceptions where a court may refuse to order return. These are found in Articles 12, 13, and 20, and they are intentionally narrow:
- Article 12 — If more than one year has passed since the removal and the child is now settled in their new environment, return may be refused.
- Article 13(a) — If the person seeking return was not actually exercising custody rights at the time of removal, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal.
- Article 13(b) — If there is a grave risk that return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm, or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
- Article 13 (discretionary) — If the child objects to being returned and has reached an age and maturity where their views should be taken into account.
- Article 20 — If return would not be permitted by the fundamental principles of the requested country relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
These exceptions are not easy to establish, and the burden falls on the abducting parent to prove them.
Vancouver BC Hague Convention Cases Are Not About Custody Tel: 604 602 9000
It is very important to understand that International Child Abduction under the Hague Convention cases do not decide who gets custody of the child. Instead, they only decide where the child should be living while the courts in their home country address the custody issues. The court where the child is located will not make decisions about custody until the Hague application for return is resolved.
Special Challenges for BC High Net Worth Parties Tel: 604 602 9000
Cases involving wealthy families can present unique challenges:
- Allegations of Financial Abuse and Asset Protection: In our case, the mother claimed financial abuse and broken promises for financial support from the father and his family. However, her evidence was inconsistent, and moreover, did not show that the child would be harmed by returning to Hong Kong.
- Concerns About Wealth, Power, and Influence: Also in our case, the Mother argued that, beyond lack of support, that the father’s family’s wealth and power could somehow be used against her. However, the Mother only provided vague and unsubstantiated allegations, and the court ultimately found there was no evidence of harm to the child.
- Jurisdictional and Enforcement Complexities: These cases often involve courts in multiple countries, requiring urgent court orders in more than one country, and careful planning to enforce return orders across borders.
- Child’s Lifestyle and Comfort: Both parents provided the child with a privileged lifestyle in Hong Kong. The court found that returning the child to Hong Kong would not negatively affect his comfort or well-being.
Canadian UHNW Hague Convention Child Abduction Lawyers- The Facts of Chau v. Tsang Tel: 604 602 9000
With that background in mind, let us turn to what happened in this case.
The parties were a married couple with children whose habitual residence was in Hong Kong, and had been for years. The mother (the respondent in the Hague proceedings) brought the children to British Columbia, Canada. The father, left behind in Hong Kong, took immediate legal action. As the mother had already filed a court action in Hong Kong, the father obtained an order from the Hong Kong courts, directing that the children be returned to Hong Kong. The mother did not comply with that order. It was then that the father turned to MacLean Law, to pursue the court application under the Hague Convention in Canada.
What makes this case particularly striking — and frankly unusual — is that the mother herself commenced family law proceedings in Hong Kong, right before she left. This is not typical behavior for a parent who has fled a jurisdiction. It is much more common that the absconding parent would simply flee to another country first, and only then file a family law case there in the new country, essentially hoping that the foreign court would take the case, rather than the home country.
By filing in Hong Kong before she fled, the Mother essentially sent mixed legal signals. On the one hand, by the Hong Kong court action she wanted the Hong Kong courts to deal with this, but on the other, she had left the jurisdiction and gone to B.C., and then, remarkably, also filed an action in B.C..
Even more troubling, the Mother did not disclose to the B.C. court that a return order had already been made by the Hong Kong courts. This was deeply regrettable. The existence of a foreign return order is precisely the kind of material fact that a court needs to know.
Canadian UHNW Hague Convention Child Abduction Lawyers- Why the Mother’s Arguments Failed
The mother’s argument was principally under Article 13(b), alleging that return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm. However, the mother in this case did not provide credible allegations. Moreover, she had not been forthright with the courts, as above. As such, at paragraph 51, the court said:
I conclude that Ms. Tsang’s evidence is not reliable, and not reliably true. I will not accept it on disputed matters unless it is supported by other evidence. I do not have concerns about Mr. Chau’s evidence. Where their evidence conflicts and there is no objective evidence to assist with fact-finding, I prefer the evidence of Mr. Chau.
We pause to note that, unlike this case, there are indeed other cases where grave risk of harm has been found to be a reason for the court to deny the Hague application, and let the child remain in B.C.. In those cases, however, there is usually at least one or more of the following:
- substantial and irrefutable evidence of violence such as threats, drug use, and physical violence;
- a question as to whether or not the absconding parent might be prevented from returning to the home country for visa or other reasons, thus being separated from the child;
- significant concern about the parent in the home country, if they for example they have no home there, few financial resources and little experience in caring for the child.
None of the above was the case in Chau v. Tsang. The court found that the Mother in this case did not meet the burden to show grave risk, and ordered the child returned home to Hong Kong.
Canadian UHNW Hague Convention Child Abduction Lawyers-What This Means for You
International Child Abduction can be a terrifying experience, and we at MacLean Law want parents to understand that that yes, there are international legal remedies. The Hague Convention exists precisely for situations like this one, and when both countries involved are signatories, it is a powerful tool.
If your child has been taken abroad, time matters, and what you say matters. The Convention works best when action is taken quickly and carefully. You should immediately seek legal advice from a lawyer experienced in international family law. You will want to identify whether the destination country is a Hague signatory, gather evidence of your child’s habitual residence, and document that the removal was wrongful.
The case discussed here also sends a message to parents who may be contemplating taking a child abroad without the other parent’s consent: the legal consequences are serious. Courts do not look favorably on parents who breach court orders, conceal proceedings from other courts, or use international borders as a litigation strategy. As this case shows, those tactics tend to backfire. We at MacLean law were glad to prevail in this case, and would be happy to assist you in your case, should you ever be in need.
