Habitual Residence – Art. 3
The court ruled that the terms of the agreement of 4 June 1996 and of the proposed consent orders did not indicate an intention that the children’s place of habitual residence be changed. Rather the proposed orders prima facie were drawn on the basis that the residence of the children would remain in Australia. The court held that neither parent could change the habitual residence of the children without the express or tacit consent of the other or an order of the court. In the instant case the father had given neither a tacit nor express consent. The court consequently ruled that immediately before the children were retained by the mother they were habitually resident in Australia.
Menu
