SUPREME COURT ALTERS CHILD CUSTODY GUIDELINES

for the nearly 100 signatory countries — children must be quickly returned to the country of their “habitual residence” if they are taken away from it by a guardian who does not have permission to do so.

The convention does not, however, define what constitutes a “habitual residence,” leaving it up to courts to decide in each case.

The case before the top court involved a Canadian couple who moved to Germany in 2001 and had two children there. The father was granted custody after the couple separated in 2011, but, country of habitual residence, the ruling said.

The case then took several legal turns.

An Ontario Superior Court in St. Catharines ruled the kids should be returned to Germany, based on their parents’ intentions at the time they were taken to Canada.

The mother appealed that ruling and a second judge decided the kids should stay in Canada, as they had integrated into the community. Another appeal, brought by the father, agreed with the original decision, that the kids should be returned to Europe.

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer — a provincial agency in Ontario that represents children in custody and parental access cases — then turned to the Supreme Court, saying the children had ended up being “harmed” by the operation of an international convention meant to protect them.

In 2016, before the Supreme Court had a chance to hear the case, the children moved back to Germany, where a judge granted their mother sole custody. They then returned to Canada with her in 2017, the Supreme Court said.

The Supreme Court acknowledged in its decision that the family’s case is now “moot,” and that the children’s fate is not at issue.

It nonetheless dismissed the appeal, finding the children were habitually resident in Germany when their father had granted them permission to go to Canada.