The child, a girl, was 8 at the date of the alleged wrongful retention. She had lived in Israel for the majority of her life. Her parents were married and had joint rights of custody. The father had Israeli nationality while the mother was Czech. In 1999 the mother went to the Czech Republic, her State of origin, with the child and did not return.
The father then petitioned for a return order under the Convention. On 10 December 1999 the District court Rychnov nad Kn?_nou ordered the return of the child. The mother appealed. On 10 May 2000 the first instance order was confirmed by the Hradec Kr?lov? (Court of Appeal) Hradec Kr?lov?.
Then the mother then petitioned the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. She complained that the lower courts had not taken into consideration all the evidence she had presented. First she presented letters written by the father. She further presented a report made by a child psychologist which stated that the child was able to formulate her own opinions.
A second constitutional appeal was filed by the local Social Authority which had been appointed to represent the child’s interests. This was not allowed to proceed because of the appeal filed by the mother.
Nevertheless the Social Authority submitted a further report by a child-psychologist which confirmed that the child’s level of maturity was above-average and she was able to express unambiguously her needs. It was further noted that if the child’s views were not respected this would cause her serious psychical trauma.
