Re N. (Abduction: Habitual Residence) [2000] 2 FLR 899
The children were aged, 5, almost 4 and 1 _ at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. They had lived in England for the majority of their lives. The parents were married and had joint rights of custody. The parents’ marriage was somewhat tempestuous. There were allegations of domestic violence and heavy drinking by […]
M. v. K., 20/06/2000; Iceland Supreme Court
The parties lived in Spain, they separated in 1998 and divorced in 1999. Their two children, boys aged 10 and 13, lived with the mother after the separation and divorce. The mother had some custody rights, “custodia” and “cuidado”, but other custody rights, notably, patria potestas, were shared by the parents. The mother took the […]
Secretary for Justice v. C., ex parte H.
Grave Risk – Art. 13(1)(b) The Court held that care had to be taken against allowing evidence which was primarily directed to what the child’s best interests would be in any dispute over primary care. It noted that the following general principles were relevant: 1) The focus is on the child’s situation, not that of […]
Cour d’appel de Luxembourg, 3 mai 2000, Nos de r?le 24115 et 24134
The case concerned a girl born in 1990 in Germany to a German mother and French father. The father had acknowledged paternity four years after her birth. At that time, the mother and child lived in Germany and the father in France. From late 1997 to late 1998 at least, the mother and child lived […]
H.D. et N.C. c. H.F.C., Cour d’appel du Qu?bec, 15 mai 2000, N? 500-09-009601-006 (500-04-021679-007)
L’enfant en cause ?tait n? en Italie en 1992. La famille, originaire d’Iran, y r?sidait l?galement depuis les ann?es 80. Le p?re ?tait souvent violent ? l’?gard de la m?re. L’enfant ayant contract? une grave maladie, la m?re l’emmena aux Etats-Unis avec un visa de touriste pour l’y faire suivre m?dicalement pendant un mois. Apr?s […]
In the Matter of L.L. (Children), 22 May 2000, Family Court of New York
Grave Risk – Art. 13(1)(b) The evidence of the parents was deeply divided as to the nature of their life and the treatment of the children while they lived in the Netherlands. The children were interviewed by a pediatrician and a social worker. The court found that it was highly likely that the father engaged […]
CA Grenoble, 29 mars 2000, No de RG 00/00797
Grave Risk – Art. 13(1)(b) There was no immediate grave risk that the return of the child would expose her to a physical or psychological danger or place her in an intolerable situation. In this the court noted that the child had had her principal residence with her father in the United States since September […]
Sonderup v. Tondelli 2001 (1) SA 1171 (CC)
Rights of Custody – Art. 3 The mother sought to argue that the father did not possess any rights of custody. She relied on the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Croll v. Croll that a non-removal clause does not found a right of custody. The Constitutional Court noted […]
Re T. (Abduction: Child’s Objections to Return) [2000] 2 F.L.R. 192
The children, a girl and a boy, were 11 and 6 1/2 at the date of the wrongful removal. The parents, who were separated, had joint rights of custody. The parents were British but had moved to Spain shortly before the birth of their son. The children’s home was in Spain. Custody proceedings in respect […]
Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services and Odierna, 17 March 2000, Family Court of Australia (Sydney) [2000] FamCA 2102
Rights of Access – Art. 21 Under different Italian court orders the father had sole custody in respect of the child. Consequently he did not have any order conferring him with access rights. Having failed in his return application he sought to argue that his custody order was the equivalent of an order providing for […]