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.
Re M. (Abduction: Psychological Harm) [1997] 2 FLR 690
Appeal dismissed and return refused; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate the children would face a grave risk of psychological harm had been met.
Re S. (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1998] 2 FLR 115
Appeal allowed and return refused; the father had acquiesced in the retention of his son. The court exercised its discretion not to order the return of the child.
Re P. (A Minor) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1998] 2 FLR 835
Appeal dismissed and return ordered, undertakings offered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) to indicate consent or acquiescence of the removal had not been met.
Re S. (A Minor), 20 August 1996, High Court, transcript; The Independent, 14 October 1996
Return ordered; the children were habitually resident in Canada at the relevant date.
Whitley v. Whitley 1992 GWD 22-1248
Appeal dismissed and return of the children to the United States ordered; the evidence did not support a finding of a grave risk of harm pursuant to Article 13(1)(b).
Re B. (Abduction: Children’s Objections) [1998] 1 FLR 667
Removal wrongful but return refused on the basis of the children’s objections.
Re H. and Others (Minors) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1998] AC 72
Appeal allowed and return ordered; Article 13(1)(a) was not established.
