Legal Case
1Ob220/02p, Oberster Gerichtshof
Appeal allowed: the trial judges had not considered whether, under Article 3, the children had acquired a habitual residence in Australia.
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
1Ob51/02k, Oberster Gerichtshof
Le recours du p?re est accueilli ; l’instance d’appel n’aurait pas d? supposer que le retour des enfants impliquait qu’ils soient confi?s ? un p?re
Legal Case
S. v. S., 25 May 1998, transcript (Unofficial Translation), Austrian Regional Civil Court, Graz
Appeal allowed and case remitted to the District Civil Court of Graz to rule on the father’s application for access.
Legal Case
6Ob183/97y, Oberster Gerichtshof
Recours rejet? ; confirmation de la d?cision refusant le retour. Le d?placement ?tait illicite, mais les conditions d’application de l’article 13 alin?a 1 b ?taient
Legal Case
Arthur & Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services and Anor [2017] FamCAFC 111, (2017) FLC 93-781
https://www.incadat.com/en/case/11
Legal Case
State Central Authority & Quang [2009] FamCA 1038
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2009/1038.html
Legal Case
L.K. v. Director-General Department of Community Services [2009] HCA 9, (2009) 253 ALR 202
https://www.incadat.com/en/case/975
Legal Case
Richards & Director-General, Department of Child Safety [2007] FamCA 65
Appeal dismissed and return order confirmed; whilst the children objected to a return the standard required under Article 13(2) had not been reached.
Legal Case
Family application 042273/99 DR. Z.M. v. R.M.P.
Compensation would be awarded to the applicant father to cover the cost of locating the child, hiring a lawyer in Israel and the lawyer’s fees.