Legal Case
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
Knowledge Base
Probably the world's biggest database for parental abduction.
Refine Search:
Language
Resource Type
Resource Topics
Countries
Year Published
Keyword Search:
Results:
Legal Case
Secretary for Justice v. Penney, ex parte Calabro [1995] NZFLR 827
Return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard required under Article 13(2) had been made out with respect to the two older children, while
Legal Case
Secretary of Justice v. D., transcript, District Court of New Zealand at Auckland
Return ordered; the removal was wrongful as it was in breach of the father’s rights of custody.
Legal Case
S. v. S. [1999] NZFLR 625
Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and it was questionable whether the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had been made out. In
Legal Case
Secretary for Justice v. Abrahams, ex parte Brown
Return ordered; although the children objected to a return there was evidence of external pressure and the court exercised its discretion to make a return
Legal Case
Gross v. Boda [1995] NZFLR 49
Appeal allowed on the basis that there had been a breach of custody rights and case remitted to the District Court for the making of
Legal Case
X. (the mother) against De directie Preventie, en namens Y. (the father) (14 april 2000, ELRO nr. AA 5524, Zaaksnr.R99/076HR)
Challenge to legality dismissed; the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been met and the return was therefore ordered.
Legal Case
A.A.A. v. A.S.H. (Registrar General for England and Wales and the Secretary for Justice) [2009] EWHC 636 (Fam.)
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed36657
Legal Case
X. (Stichting Bureau Jeugdzorg {BJA}) against Y. (the mother) (14 April 2000, ELRO nr: AA5523 Zaaknr.R99/111HR)
Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal of the child was not wrongful as the rights possessed by the BJA did not amount to rights of