International Child Abduction & Relocation

Yes, it can be indicative of whether the parents intended to uproot from Israel and settle abroad. This is relevant in determining whether Israel or the foreign country is the minors’ place of habitual residence. To change the place of habitual residence of very young children’s country, from Israel to another country, it must be proved that the parents both agreed to do so.

Not necessarily. In a judgment given by the Haifa Family Court in September 2003 Israel was held to be the centre of a child’s life, even though the minor, who was born in Israel and was nearly 5, had spent the last two years in the States, where his father, an academic had been studying and working. The couple had lived there before, too. The paternal grandfather, who lived in Israel, had purchased return tickets for the mother and grandchild to visit Israel… but the mother never returned at the end of the visit. The court rejected the claim by the father that the United States was the centre of the child’s life and place of habitual residence. It refused to order his return. Neither parent nor the child had American citizenship, and they had not applied for it either, though the paternal grandfather gave evidence to say that the future of the plaintiff, an academic lecturing and researching at an American University, was in the United States, where they had rented property long-term, and that they had no plans to live in Israel.

Yes, in certain circumstances. The parent runs the risk of giving the abductor the defence of ‘acquiescence’ if Hague Convention proceedings are later filed. It is advisable to file for the child’s return early and not follow a different legal strategy which could be construed as acceptance of the status quo.

Where the two countries involved are bound by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction the court where the plea is brought for a minor’s return does have discretion not to return him ‘ in the defence of human rights and basic freedoms’ .

Yes, but only after a year has passed since the time of the alleged abduction and the filing of the plea in court in Israel, according to article 12 of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction in Israel.This provides for a “prompt return” order unless more than a year has elapsed, in which case the court is entitled to consider whether the minors have adapted to Israel. If more than a year has elapsed between the alleged abduction and the filing of the plea in Israel, and it is proved that the children have adapted to their new environment, then the court has jurisdiction not to order them back to the country of habitual residence. Clearly other permitted defences e.g. acquiescence or “grave risk” can be raised, if appropriate.

Petitions for the return of children over the age of 16 who were allegedly abducted to Israel should be made to the Supreme Court of Justice in Jerusalem, regardless of the country they live in.

Yes – as Ashdod Family Court did a few years ago, responding positively to a Hague Convention plea by a father represented by Adv. Amihoud Borochov to return the minor to the U.K., from where he had abducted by his mother on 26.2.08. The court held that the father had proved that the child’s country of habitual residence prior to the abduction was the U.K., despite unsuccessful claims by the mother that it was Israel, and ordered the child’s return to Manchester, where he had been living prior to the abduction. “The cumulative effect ” of the mass of evidence brought by the father led the court to the “conclusion that the parties’ intention was to move and live in England for two years,” it said, and accordingly, the U.K. and not Israel, was the minor’s place of habitual residence.

Where there is a dispute between the parents as to their respective declared intentions concerning the move from Israel and whether the minor’s habitual residence has indeed changed or not, and the child is very young, the court will examine the evidence that emerges during the proceedings , and will apply a mixed test that takes into account its interpretations of the parents’ real shared intentions as to the move , and the “facts on the ground” about where the centre of the child’s life was immediately prior to the abduction.

In this case the family had relocated to Manchester following a lucrative job offer received by the father. Ten months after the actual move, the mother returned to Israel with the minor without the father’s knowledge or consent, while he was at work.

Your wife has “wrongfully retained” your children in Israel as your consent to them being abroad was for a limited period until their scheduled return. Wrongful retention is one form of child abduction recognized in the Hague Convention On The Civil Aspects of Child Abduction (1980) to which both Israel and the U.K. are signatories. You can make an application under the convention to the Central Authority in England for the return of your child. After being checked your application will be passed on to the central authority in Israel – The State Attorney’s Department – and an application will be made to the family court in Israel for your child’s return. Unless one of the defences listed under the convention is proved, the family court will order the children’s return to the U.K.