Knowledge Base
Probably the world's biggest database for parental abduction.
Refine Search:
Language
Resource Type
Resource Topics
Countries
Year Published
Keyword Search:
Results:
C. v. T.
Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in Australia on the relevant date.
K.S. v. L.S. [2003] 3 NZLR 837
Appeal allowed and return ordered; a grave risk of harm had not been established to the standard required under the Convention. The trial court had
White v. Northumberland [2006] NZFLR 1105
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the child’s objections did not satisfy the standard required under Article 13(2) of the Convention.
Secretary for Justice (New Zealand Central Authority) v. H.J. [2007] 2 NZLR 289
Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the children were now settled in their new environment and it would not be appropriate
Winters v. Cowen [2002] NZFLR 927
Retention wrongful and return ordered. Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention, but the court exercised its discretion to make
Secretary for Justice v. N., ex parte C.
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
El Sayed v Secretary for Justice [2003] 1 NZLR 349
Appeal allowed and return refused; the retention was wrongful but Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
U. v. D. [2002] NZFLR 529
Retention wrongful and return ordered. Acquiescence on the part of the applicant parent was established to the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) but the court