Legal Case
Civil Appeal 4391/96 Ro v. Ro
Grave Risk – Art. 13(1)(b) The Supreme Court held that the exception in Article 13(1)(b) did not apply in the present case for the following
Menu
Grave Risk – Art. 13(1)(b) The Supreme Court held that the exception in Article 13(1)(b) did not apply in the present case for the following
The child, a boy, was aged about 2 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. The parents were married and had joint rights of
The child, a girl, was 1 1/3 at the date of the alleged wrongful retention. She had lived in Italy all of her life. The
The child, a boy, was aged 2 1/2 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. The parents were married. On 28 August 1996 the
The child, a boy, was approximately 7 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. He had lived in Germany and Ireland. The parents were
The child, a boy, was aged 7 at the date of the alleged wrongful retention. He had lived in Italy all his life. The parents
The child, a girl, was 5 1/2 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. She had lived in the United States all of her
The mother applied for the return of her child before a New York State court. On the day of the hearing the father filed a
The children, two girls, were aged a little over 6 and 3 _ at the date of the alleged wrongful retention. They had spent the
L’enfant, un gar?on, ?tait n? au Canada, d’une m?re autrichienne et d’un p?re mexicain. Le p?re demanda le divorce en Juin 1995 devant une juridiction
Our goal is to empower individuals around the world through AI technology as a tool to find and reconnect with their families.
By using our site, you agree to our privacy policy and terms.
© 2024 | 740 JARVIS DR. MH, CA 95037 | FIND MY PARENT, Inc., a CA PUBLIC CHARITY, C4616619.