C. v. C., 25 May 1992, Tel Aviv District Court (Israel)

INCADAT legal file Hague parental abduction

Share THIS:



Aims of the Convention – Preamble, Arts 1 and 2
The Court expressed the view that it was competent to annul the decision of the Haifa District Court regarding custody since the provisions of the Convention took precedence over all contrary legal provisions (under the Israeli implementing statute). In this the Court referred to Article 17 of the Convention.
Habitual Residence – Art. 3
The court held that where a child has not been present in a particular forum on a long term basis one should focus on the mutual and expressed intent of the parents when they moved to that place. The mother argued that the temporary nature of her employment in the US and her lack of immigrant status there, indicated that the child was not habitually resident there. The court rejected this argument and noted that the criterion for the purposes of the Convention was the child’s habitual residence and not that of the parents. The court found that the child had acquired a habitual residence in the United States.