
S. v. S., ‘ir’ur mehozi (Family Appeal) 128/99 (nyr)
The child, a boy, was 12 1/2 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. The parents, both orthodox Jews, were married. The child lived
The child, a boy, was 12 1/2 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. The parents, both orthodox Jews, were married. The child lived
The case related to a boy aged 4 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. The parents were separated and had joint rights of
L’enfant avait la double nationalit? austro-am?ricaine. Les parents ?taient mari?s et avaient d’abord v?cu avec l’enfant ? St Petersburg (USA) avant de s’installer en Autriche
The application related to a child born in 1996. He had spent his entire life in the United States with his parents until he was
L’affaire concernait un enfant n? en 1989 et avait pass? les six premi?res ann?es de sa vie au Portugal avant de s’installer en Suisse. Le
Grave Risk – Art. 13(1)(b) A grave risk defence should be based upon serious and convincing evidence. In ordinary circumstances, a parent’s refusal to accompany
The child, a boy, was 6 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. He had spent his entire life in Cyprus. The parents’ marriage
The child, a girl, was 5 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. She had lived in both England and the United States. Her
Two children were born of the marriage of the spouses S and R. The family lived in the United States. The mother unilaterally removed the
The children were 6 and 1 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. They had lived in Israel all of their lives. In late