The case concerned a child born in Canada in 2003. The parents, who had lived together sporadically for a few years then regularly from December
The application related to a child born in 2004 to a British father and a South African mother. The parents had married in South Africa.
R?sidence habituelle – art. 3 La m?re indiquait que la Cour d’appel n’avait pas caract?ris? que la r?sidence habituelle de l’enfant, qui avait souvent effectu?
The application related to a child born in Germany on 11 January 2005. Shortly after the birth the parents separated with the child remaining with
Aims of the Convention – Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 The father did not seek to challenge the legal basis for the non-return order but
The child, a boy, was born in Ontario in June 2006. The Australian father did not secure entry to the country because of a criminal
The child, a girl, was almost 1 year old at the time of the alleged wrongful removal. She was born in France in July 2007,
The proceedings, which were in the context of immigration and asylum law rather than child abduction law, related to a Lebanese mother and child, the
Les deux enfants, n?s en 1989 et 1990, avaient v?cu jusqu’en 1996 en Argentine. Depuis le divorce de leurs parents, ils vivaient avec la m?re
The English father and Israeli mother married in Israel and their son was born in 2003. The father was finding it difficult to make a