Koch v. Koch, 450 F.3d 703 (2006 7th Cir.)
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the children were habitually resident in Germany at the time of the removal, albeit the primary reasoning of the trial court was not followed.
Rodriguez v. Nat’l Ctr. for Missing & Exploited Children, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5658 (D.D.C., Mar. 31, 2005)
Constitutional claims dismissed, claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act dismissed, claim of a conspiracy based on racial or other class-based animus dismissed and writ of mandamus denied.
Bekier v. Bekier, 248 F.3d 1051 (11th Cir. 2001)
Application to appeal dismissed and return order upheld. The prior return of the child rendered an appeal moot.
Danaipour v. McLarey, 386 F.3d 289 (1st Cir. 2004)
Appeal dismissed and return refused; the trial court had been entitled to find that the standard required for Article 13(1)(b) had been reached.
Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir 2004)
Appeal dismissed and return application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the children never acquired a habitual residence in Germany.
Ruiz v. Tenorio, 392 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2004)
Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the Convention was not applicable as the children had never lost their habitual residence in the United States during their two year ten month stay in Mexico.
Escaf v. Rodriquez, 200 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2002)
Return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Silverman v. Silverman, 338 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003)
Appeal allowed and return ordered; the children were habitually resident in Israel at the time of the retention and Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Miller v. Miller, 240 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2001)
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the level of risk required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved.
Norden-Powers and Beveridge v. Beveridge, 125 F.Supp.2d 634 (E.D.N.Y.2000)
Return ordered; the removal was wrongful having been in breach of actually exercised rights of custody and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
