A.S. v. P.S. (Child Abduction) [1998] 2 IR 244
Appeal allowed and return ordered with undertakings given; the standard of proof required under Article 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) had not been met.
Nottinghamshire County Council v. K.B. and K.B. [2011] IESC 48
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/775840E6393C0593802579670057F84C
B.B. v. J.B. [1998] 1 ILRM 136; sub nom B. v. B. (Child Abduction) [1998] 1 IR 299
Appeal allowed and case remitted to the High Court for it to exercise its discretion as to whether the child should be returned to England.
W.P.P. v. S.R.W. [2001] ILRM 371
Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as it was not in breach of any rights of custody.
M. v. K., 06/12/2000; Iceland Supreme Court
Appeal against return order dismissed; the removal was in breach of the father’s rights of custody and therefore wrongful.
Re B. (Child Abduction: Unmarried Father) [1999] Fam 1, [1998] 2 FLR 146, [1998] Fam Law 452
Article 15 declaration refused; the removal of the child was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.
H. (M.S.) v. H. (L.) (Child Abduction: Custody) [2000] 3 IR 390; [2001] 1 ILRM 448
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful as it was in breach of the father’s custody rights. The standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out.
R.K. v. J.K. (Child Abduction: Acquiescence) [2000] 2 IR 416
Appeal dismissed; the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) to show that the father had acquiesced had not been met.
Prizzia v. Hungary (Application No 20255/12)
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-120951
Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Stuttgart Higher Regional Court), 17 UF 56/16, 04 May 2016