Family application 042273/99 DR. Z.M. v. R.M.P.
Compensation would be awarded to the applicant father to cover the cost of locating the child, hiring a lawyer in Israel and the lawyer’s fees. Compensation was not awarded for emotional distress because the damage was not sufficiently serious, bearing in mind that the child was returned.
Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department v. TS (2001) FLC 93-063, [2000] FamCA 1692, 27 Fam LR 376
Return refused; the removal was wrongful but the child was found to have become settled in his new environment.
Director-General Department of Families, Youth and Community Care and Hobbs, 24 September 1999, Family Court of Australia (Brisbane) [1999] FamCA 2059, (2000) FLC 93-007
Return ordered subject to undertakings; the removal of the child breached the father’s rights of custody and the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been established.
DP v. Commonwealth Central Authority; JLM v. Director-General NSW Department of Community Services [2001] HCA 39, (2001) 180 ALR 402
The High Court allowed the appeal in both cases. The cases were remitted to the Full Court of the Family Court for further consideration consistent with the reasons for judgment of the High Court.
In the Marriage of Regino and Regino v. The Director-General, Department of Families Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Central Authority (1995) FLC 92-587, [1994] FamCA 147
Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the father had consented to the relocation of mother and child to Australia.
Decision of the Federal Supreme Court 5A_437/2021 of 8 September 2021
The child, a girl, was 4 at the time of the alleged wrongful removal from the USA. The parents were not married and met online when the mother was still a teenager (and living in Switzerland). During her second visit to Florida the mother (not a US national) became pregnant. The mother gave birth to […]
Director General of the Department of Community Services v. N., 19 August 1994, transcript, Family Court of Australia (Sydney)
Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and neither Article 13(1)(b) nor Article 13(2) had been proven to the standard required under the Convention.
In the Marriage of S.S. and D.K. Bassi (1994) FLC 92-465, 17 Fam LR 571
Removal wrongful but return refused; the standard required under Article 13(2) had been met with respect to the older girl’s objections and it was consequently held that it would place the younger child in an intolerable situation to be returned alone.
Thompson v. Russia (Application no. 36048/17)
The father, a British national, and the mother, a Russian national, both lived in Spain. They had a daughter born in 2013 who is a British national by birth. On 27 April 2016, the mother informed the father from the airport that she was taking their daughter to Russia with no intention of returning to […]
Jacquety v Baptista (S.D. N.Y. 2021) 2021 WL 1885263
The parents were born and lived in Morocco. The mother was a Spanish and Portuguese national and the father a French national. The couple married in France in 2013 and had one child, born in 2014 in Morocco. In November 2018 the mother travelled with the child to Switzerland and then to Portugal and on […]