Knowledge Base
Probably the world's biggest database for parental abduction.
Refine Search:
Language
Resource Type
Resource Topics
Countries
Year Published
Keyword Search:
Results:
DZ v YVAMVD, RFamA 2270/13
http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files/13/700/022/t04/13022700.t04.pdf
LM v MM Nevo, RFamA 2338/09
Appeal dismissed and return order upheld; the retention was wrongful the child being habitually resident in France at the relevant date, and none of the
J. v. B., 25 April 2007, Court for Family Matters, Beersheva
Removal wrongful and return ordered to a Member State other than the State of the child’s habitual residence; none of the exceptions had been proved
3052/99 S. v. S.
Appeal allowed and return refused; decision of the trial court, that the standard required by Article 13(2) had not been met, restored.
F v F, MA 2898/92 [1992] IsrSC (unreported)
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful, being in breach of the father’s right of custody.
C. v. C., 23 March 1995, Be’er Sheva District Court
Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful since the child was habitually resident in Israel at the relevant date.
A.S. v. P.S. (Child Abduction) [1998] 2 IR 244
Appeal allowed and return ordered with undertakings given; the standard of proof required under Article 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) had not been met.
Nottinghamshire County Council v. K.B. and K.B. [2011] IESC 48
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/775840E6393C0593802579670057F84C
B.B. v. J.B. [1998] 1 ILRM 136; sub nom B. v. B. (Child Abduction) [1998] 1 IR 299
Appeal allowed and case remitted to the High Court for it to exercise its discretion as to whether the child should be returned to England.