
Toren v. Toren, 26 F. Supp. 2d 240 (D. Mass. 1998)
The children were 7 and 4 at the date of the alleged wrongful retention. They had lived in both Israel and the United States. In
The children were 7 and 4 at the date of the alleged wrongful retention. They had lived in both Israel and the United States. In
The child, a boy, was 1 at the date of the alleged wrongful retention. He had lived in both the United States and Germany. The
The child was 3 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. The parents were not married but both had rights of custody. The child
The children, both boys, were 12 and 4 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. They had lived in Canada and Greece. The parents
Grave Risk – Art. 13(1)(b) It was argued that the allegations of sexual abuse were of such a nature to activate the Article 13(1)(b) exception.
The child, a boy, was nearly 7 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. He had lived in Switzerland all of his life. The
The children, two girls and a boy, were approximately 8 1/2, 4 1/2 and 4 1/2 respectively at the date of the alleged wrongful retention.
Procedural Matters The Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the constitutional complaint filed by the father was admissible; this justified the issuance of the provisional measure
The child, a boy, was 3_ at the time of the alleged wrongful removal. The parents were married, and had joint custody but they did