International Child Abduction & Relocation

A: Apparently not. The defense of a corrupt country has not yet been recognized in proceedings under the Hague Convention, as a defense/exception to the non-return of an abducted minor. Thus, in a Judgment given in Israel on 24.12.23, by the Family Court in the Krayot (Family File 19298-08-23), a defense claim by a mother who abducted a child was rejected, regarding the corruption of the judicial system in the Ukraine, and it was determined that the case should be examined solely according to the Hague Convention.

A: Not necessarily. You must act quickly and file a lawsuit against your wife for the return of your son, according to the Hague Convention, in order to substantiate your claim that the child was abducted, by her not returning him to his habitual place of residence, as defined by the Hague Convention. If you wait, if from your correspondence with the mother, it may be understood that you agree for the minor to remain in Israel, then the court may rule against you, considering that the child has already been in Israel for six months. In a ruling issued on 25.12.23, in the Hadera Family Court (Family File # 30859-11-23), it was determined that, although the minor (two years old) was born in the US, and the parents agreed to reside in the US, the father’s avoidance of taking legal action for almost a year to return their minor daughter from Israel to the US, according to the Hague Convention, constitutes acquiescence.

A: The agreement itself provides remedies in the event of its violation, but in principle, the condition of the voluntary return agreement is that if the abducting parent violates it and does not return the child as agreed, the other parent may return the child themselves.

A: The terms can relate to the issue of financing plane tickets home, paying for apartment rental (for the mother and children separately) or ensuring that the mother and children’s living and financial expenses are covered, also, payment of monthly child support, temporarily, for the children and even payment of an additional significant lump sum of money.

A: No, there is no stipulation on this matter. The agreement may refer to the removal or non-return of the children, but the agreement will not state whether the act was “unlawful” (which in legal terms means that an abduction occurred). This is the basic principle regarding voluntary return.

A: Yes! It is acceptable to grant an extension of several weeks, in the case of a voluntary return agreement for abducted children that has been approved by a court and has received the force of a judgment. Even in cases where there is no voluntary return, but the court believes that the minor requires emotional/mental preparation for return, the return date may be postponed in order to receive emotional treatment.

A: It saves time, expense and heartache. Reaching an agreement prevents the continuation of legal proceedings such as filing appeals and provides an opportunity for the parties to create a basis for cooperation between them in the future.

Q: Article 13b of the Hague Convention states that “The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views”. In most cases, the court will consider the circumstances and will not decide solely based on the children’s words but will try to examine whether this is their independent opinion. The court will also take into account their age, the time that has passed, and the opinion of an expert who will be appointed and/or a legal guardian and/or an attorney who will be appointed to represent them in the proceedings (children’s counsel). Thus, in a judgement issued in the appeal of an abducting mother, in the Haifa District Court (Ap. No. 18415-12-23), on 31.3.24, after the appellate court met with the two minors, it was determined that the exception in the Hague Convention of “the child’s wishes”, which justifies non-return to the country of origin (there: Sweden), does not apply. The court there dismissed the appeal filed by the abducting mother.

*Our law firm represented the father in this case.

A: To prove a defense claim of ” grave risk” under the Hague Convention (article 13b), you will have to prove in court that returning the child (not yours) to Hungary would endanger her. In other words, the claim must relate to the country (here-Hungary) and not to her father. This was ruled on 31.3.24 in an appeal filed by a mother, against a judgement that she had abducted her two minor children from Sweden to Israel, by the Haifa District Court (Appeal Case No. 18415-12-23)

*Our law firm represented the father in this case.

Q: Regarding the appointment itself, your chances are low. The Court has discretion in the matter of appointing a guardian ad litem, even in expedited proceedings under the Hague Convention, and the Court of Appeal, usually, does not interfere with these considerations. On the other hand, in the matter of fee payment, it is certainly possible that the Court of Appeal will intervene in an issue that, on its face, appears unbalanced. Thus, in a ruling given on 24.6.24, in this matter, by the District Court in Nof HaGalil-Nazareth (Leave of Appeal # 49959-06-24), as an appellate court, a father’s application to annul a decision of the Haifa Family Court to appoint a legal guardian, for a minor, in a Hague Convention case, was rejected. However, the District Court ordered the Family Court to reconsider and/or justify its decision, placing all the legal guardian’s fees on the father/plaintiff alone.