Norden-Powers and Beveridge v. Beveridge, 125 F.Supp.2d 634 (E.D.N.Y.2000)
Return ordered; the removal was wrongful having been in breach of actually exercised rights of custody and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
X v Y and Z Police Force [2012] EWHC 2838 (Fam)
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed104956
Re G. and A. (Abduction: Consent) [2003] NIFam 16
Removal wrongful but return refused; consent had been established in accordance with the terms of Article 13(1)(a).
S. v. S., 2003 SLT 344
Removal wrongful and return ordered; the father was actually exercising his rights of custody and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Re H. (Abduction: Child of 16) [2000] 2 FLR 51
In respect of the elder child: The Convention was not applicable, the child having attained the age of 16 by the date of the hearing. In respect of the younger child: Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
McKiver v. McKiver 1995 SLT 790
Return ordered; the removal of the child had breached the father’s actually exercised rights of custody.
Re S. (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1998] 2 FLR 115
Appeal allowed and return refused; the father had acquiesced in the retention of his son. The court exercised its discretion not to order the return of the child.
??zmen c. Turquie (Requ?te No 28110/08)
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-115009
Central Authority of the Republic of South Africa and Another v B 2012 (2) SA 296 (GSJ)
Retention wrongful but return refused in the light of the child’s objections.
M. v. H., 30 June 1994, transcript, District Court of New Zealand at Christchurch
http://www.hcch.net/incadat/fullcase/0247.htm