Legal Case
CA Agen, 1 d?cembre 2011, No de RG 11/01437
The case concerned a child born in Australia in 2005. After the parents separated in 2009, the parties entered in April 2010 into an agreement
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
M v M [2011] NICA 36
El caso trata de tres hermanos nacidos en Irlanda del Norte, uno en 2001 y dos en 2003 (mellizos). Los padres hab?an contra?do matrimonio en
Legal Case
CA Lyon, 19 septembre 2011, No de RG 11/02919
The application concerned two children born in Germany in 1996 and 1999. After the parents’ separation, the children’s habitual residence had been set by a
Legal Case
KKO:2008:98
The proceedings related to children born in March 2005 and July 2007 to married parents. In October 2007 the family moved to Scotland. The purpose
Legal Case
6Ob230/11h, Oberster Gerichtshof
The case concerned two children aged 14 and 9, whose mother had sole custody and who had lived with her in Sicily since 2009. The
Legal Case
L.L. c. C.G., Droit de la famille 112106, Cour sup?rieure de Qu?bec 11 juillet 2011, 2011 QCCS 3612
Habitual Residence – Art. 3 The Court observed that the concept of habitual residence is defined neither by the Convention nor by the Act implementing
Legal Case
CA Bordeaux, 28 juin 2011, No de RG 11/01062
The case concerned a child born in 2004 to Portuguese parents living together in France since 2003. In August 2008, during the family’s holiday in
Legal Case
CA Rennes, 28 juin 2011, No de RG 11/02685
Rights of Custody – Art. 3 It was not disputed that, under Mexican family law, the parents exercised over their children parental authority which can
Legal Case
TV c. MB, Droit de la famille 111646, 2011 QCCS 2929
L’affaire concernait deux filles de 5 et 10 ans. La famille avait principalement v?cu aux Etats-Unis pendant leur vie commune, malgr? des s?jours annuels de
Legal Case
A.M.R.I. v. K.E.R., 2011 ONCA 417
Acquiescence – Art. 13(1)(a) The Court noted that whilst delay was not generally sufficient to establish acquiescence, the exception still merited consideration. Grave Risk –