Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927 (11th Cir. 1998)
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the children were not settled in the United States and the District Court had not abused its discretion in exercising jurisdiction in the case.
Currier v. Currier, 845 F. Supp. 916 (D.N.H. 1994)
Return ordered; the standard required under Articles 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) had not been met.
??v?s c. Turquie (Requ?te No 42981/04)
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-94933
5A_257/2011, II. zivilrechtliche Abteilung, arr?t du TF du 25 mai 2011
Gerichtskreis VI Signau-Trachselwald (District Court of Signau-Trachselwald), decision of 13 January 1998, S 286/97 sam
Return ordered; the retention was wrongful the child having retained his habitual residence in Germany.
5P.437/2004 /bnm
Demande d?clar?e irrecevable, l’all?gation de faits nouveaux n’?tant pas admise.
Simpson v Hamilton [2020] NZSC 42
U. v. D. [2002] NZFLR 529
Retention wrongful and return ordered. Acquiescence on the part of the applicant parent was established to the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) but the court nevertheless exercised its discretion to order the return of the child. None of the other exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Cass Civ 1?re, 12 d?cembre 2006, No de RG 05-22119
Legal challenge dismissed and decision refusing to return the child to Germany confirmed. The removal had been wrongful but Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Cass. Civ 1?re, 22 juin 1999, No de RG 98-17902
Challenge to legality dismissed; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.