
Cass Civ 1?re, 13 juillet 2005, No de RG 05-10519
Grave Risk – Art. 13(1)(b) The Cour de cassation affirmed that Article 13(1)(b) could not give rise to an exception to an immediate return unless
Grave Risk – Art. 13(1)(b) The Cour de cassation affirmed that Article 13(1)(b) could not give rise to an exception to an immediate return unless
L’affaire concernait un enfant n? en 1994. Les parents, s?par?s, avaient la garde conjointe, la r?sidence de l’enfant ayant ?t? octroy?e ? la m?re. Le
The child, a boy, was almost 4 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. He had spent his entire life in New Zealand. His
The proceedings related to a young boy born in April 2000. His father was Saudi Arabian and his mother had joint British and Saudi Arabian
Undertakings The Court noted that the return order had been properly made, subject to a series of stringent conditions but the conditions had not been
Objections of the Child to a Return – Art. 13(2) All three Lord Justices hearing the appeal agreed that the children should be returned forthwith,
Habitual Residence – Art. 3 To determine whether the Convention could apply to the application it had to be determined whether the child was habitually
The child, a girl, was aged 2 _ at the date of the alleged wrongful retention. The parents were married and lived in the United
Grave Risk – Art. 13(1)(b) The Full Court held that issues concerning the relationship between the half sisters and the effect a return order might
Les enfants en cause ?taient n?s en 2001 et 2003. La famille vivait en Italie. En juillet 2004, la m?re alla passer trois semaines de