
Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124 (2nd Cir. 2005)
Habitual Residence – Art. 3 For the father’s application to be valid it had to be shown first that the child was habitually resident in
Habitual Residence – Art. 3 For the father’s application to be valid it had to be shown first that the child was habitually resident in
The proceedings related to two children, one born in Israel in 1998, the other in England in 2000. The parents, who were Israeli nationals, moved
Acquiescence – Art. 13(1)(a) The fact that the father had not seen the girls for the past year and a half, even though he had
The child, a girl, was 1 1/2 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. Her parents were not married but lived together in New
The application related to a child born in 1999. The parents were married and the family lived in Italy. In June 2002 the mother took
The application related to a 10 year old girl who had been born to an American father and an Irish mother. The family home was
Human Rights – Art. 20 The step-sister argued that the trial judge had erred in referring solely to the human rights of the abducted child
The child, a boy, was 5 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. The parents met over the internet in 1998. The child was
The child, a girl, was aged 5 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. She was born in Canada, but six months after her
The child, a girl, was 3 years old at the time the complaint was filed. She was born in Cordoba, Argentina and initially lived there