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.
Pr??sidium des Bezirksgerichts St. Gallen (District Court of St. Gallen), decision of 8 September 1998, 4 PZ 98-0217/0532N
Return refused; the removal was wrongful but Article 12(2) was successfully invoked, the child now being settled in her new environment.
Decision of the Supreme Court, 7 October 1998, I CKN 745/98
Legal challenge dismissed and return order confirmed; the retention was wrongful and the conditions necessary for the application of Article 13(1)(b) and Article 20 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had not been met.
F v F, MA 2898/92 [1992] IsrSC (unreported)
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful, being in breach of the father’s right of custody.
C. v. C., 23 March 1995, Be’er Sheva District Court
Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful since the child was habitually resident in Israel at the relevant date.
Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2 BvR 233/96, 15 February 1996
Cass Civ 1?re (pourvoi n? 05-14646 )
Challenge dismissed; the Cour d’Appel had been correct in finding that none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Sabeahat v. Sabihat FS-18-0099
Interpretation of the Convention The taking parent bears the evidentiary burden to satisfy the court that the circumstances of the case qualify under Article 13(1)(b) or Article 20 as an exception. However, in the evidence called at the hearing of the mother’s application for refugee status, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) found […]
Kirn v. Kirn, 2020 ONSC 2159
Onuoha v. Onuoha, 2020 ONSC 1815