Rights of Custody – Art. 3
The father sought to argue that the retention was not wrongful as the mother was only awarded custody after the children had been retained. This argument was dismissed by the Court on the basis that Article 3 of the Convention refers not only to custody existing by judicial decisions but also, inter alia, by operation of law. Under English law the mother shared a right of custody for the children.
Grave Risk – Art. 13(1)(b)
The father sought to argue that the children would fact a grave risk of harm if returned since the mother might take them to China or Japan and that she was irresponsible and prone to acts of violence. In this he relied on the fact that on a previous occasion the mother had retained the elder child for several months in China against his wishes. He argued that the Cour d’appel had not investigated these issues in sufficient depth. These arguments were rejected.