C. v. T.
Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in Australia on the relevant date.
K.S. v. L.S. [2003] 3 NZLR 837
Appeal allowed and return ordered; a grave risk of harm had not been established to the standard required under the Convention. The trial court had moreover erred in the exercise of its discretion.
Secretary for Justice (New Zealand Central Authority) v. H.J. [2007] 2 NZLR 289
Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the children were now settled in their new environment and it would not be appropriate for them to be returned.
Winters v. Cowen [2002] NZFLR 927
Retention wrongful and return ordered. Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention, but the court exercised its discretion to make a return order.
El Sayed v Secretary for Justice [2003] 1 NZLR 349
Appeal allowed and return refused; the retention was wrongful but Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Secretary for Justice v. Penney, ex parte Calabro [1995] NZFLR 827
Return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard required under Article 13(2) had been made out with respect to the two older children, while the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had been made out with respect to the youngest child.
S. v. S. [1999] NZFLR 625
Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and it was questionable whether the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had been made out. In any event, the children were of sufficient age and maturity and they were clear in their view that they wished to return to Australia.
1Ob220/02p, Oberster Gerichtshof
Appeal allowed: the trial judges had not considered whether, under Article 3, the children had acquired a habitual residence in Australia.
6Ob183/97y, Oberster Gerichtshof
Recours rejet? ; confirmation de la d?cision refusant le retour. Le d?placement ?tait illicite, mais les conditions d’application de l’article 13 alin?a 1 b ?taient r?unies.
Sieger & Department of Communities and Justice [2020] FamCAFC 172
Grave Risk – Art. 13(1)(b) The 1980 Convention states that a court may refuse to order the return of the child if it would ‘expose the child to physical or psychological harm’. The difference between a grave risk of exposure to harm and a grave risk of suffering harm may be important, because the former […]