T.B. v. J.B. (Abduction: Grave Risk of Harm) [2001] 2 FLR 515
Appeal allowed and return ordered; by a majority verdict the Court of Appeal found that none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
D. Petitioner
Removal wrongful and return ordered; the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out.
Re A. and Another (Minors: Abduction) [1991] 2 FLR 241
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful and the father had not acquiesced in the children’s retention.
Re M. (A Minor), 10 August 1995, transcript, Court of Appeal
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful as the child was habitually resident in France at the relevant date.
Re M. (Abduction: Conflict of Jurisdiction) [2000] 2 FLR 372
Retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Spain on the relevant date.
Re H. (Abduction: Child of 16) [2000] 2 FLR 51
In respect of the elder child: The Convention was not applicable, the child having attained the age of 16 by the date of the hearing. In respect of the younger child: Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Findlay v. Findlay 1995 SLT 492
Return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Canada on the relevant date and the child was wrongfully retained in Scotland after 5 March 1993.
Matznick v. Matznick 1994 GWD 39-2277
Return ordered; in the light of the father’s undertakings the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the children would face a grave risk of physical harm had not been met.
McKiver v. McKiver 1995 SLT 790
Return ordered; the removal of the child had breached the father’s actually exercised rights of custody.
Singh v. Singh 1998 SC 68
Appeal allowed and return refused. The Lord Ordinary had erred in the exercise of his discretion with respect to the objections of the younger child.
