A.S. v. P.S. (Child Abduction) [1998] 2 IR 244
Appeal allowed and return ordered with undertakings given; the standard of proof required under Article 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) had not been met.
Nottinghamshire County Council v. K.B. and K.B. [2011] IESC 48
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/775840E6393C0593802579670057F84C
B.B. v. J.B. [1998] 1 ILRM 136; sub nom B. v. B. (Child Abduction) [1998] 1 IR 299
Appeal allowed and case remitted to the High Court for it to exercise its discretion as to whether the child should be returned to England.
Re B. (Child Abduction: Unmarried Father) [1999] Fam 1, [1998] 2 FLR 146, [1998] Fam Law 452
Article 15 declaration refused; the removal of the child was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.
H. (M.S.) v. H. (L.) (Child Abduction: Custody) [2000] 3 IR 390; [2001] 1 ILRM 448
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful as it was in breach of the father’s custody rights. The standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out.
R.K. v. J.K. (Child Abduction: Acquiescence) [2000] 2 IR 416
Appeal dismissed; the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) to show that the father had acquiesced had not been met.
Cass Civ 1?re 8 Juillet 2010, N? de pourvoi 09-65505
Hewstan v. Hewstan, [2001] B.C.J. No. 590 (B.C.S.C.) (Q.L.)
Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
In the Marriage of S.S. and D.K. Bassi (1994) FLC 92-465, 17 Fam LR 571
Removal wrongful but return refused; the standard required under Article 13(2) had been met with respect to the older girl’s objections and it was consequently held that it would place the younger child in an intolerable situation to be returned alone.
Ad Hoc Central Authority of the Republic for South Africa and Another v Koch N.O and Another (2821/2021) [2021] ZAWCHC 53
Non-Convention Issues The application was not strictly brought under the Hague Convention but was clearly related to it and aimed to enforce the rights protected and granted under the Convention. The Court found they were obliged to consider the short-term interests of the child and held that it would be potentially detrimental to the child […]