International Child Abduction & Relocation

It saves time, money and heartache, avoids dragging out the legal process via appeals, and provides the opportunity for parties to create a basis for co-operation in the future.

Possibly. Much depends on which ‘Hague’ country proceedings are being heard. Under the Convention, a child’s objection to being returned to his/her country of habitual residence, following proven child abduction, does constitute a defence, if proven, but no specific age is mentioned, and the mechanism provided for considering a minor’s views, is subject to differing interpretation, according to domestic law. The child must be ‘old’ enough and ‘mature’ enough to have their views taken into consideration, and even if they are considered, they may not necessarily be upheld.

Yes. Technically speaking a parent has one year from the time of the alleged wrongful removal or retention until the plea for their return is actually filed at the Israeli Family Court – that is to enjoy the presumption of a quick return under the Convention. After that time, the court has discretion not to order a return if the children are shown to be settled into life in Israel… and after one year it is highly likely that they will have done so, unless they are very young. In practice, however, even within the one year period, the longer the children stay, the more they plant roots in Israel, and the greater the risk of the defending parent proving that the other parent has ‘acquiesced’ (resigned himself to the abduction) which is a legitimate defence. The sooner a child abduction plea is started, the greater the chances of return are. Parents often waste time negotiating and getting toothless orders in their home countries, before taking action under the Convention.

Possibly, but you might be able to successfully defend proceedings because the court in Europe hearing the case may refuse to order the children back if you can prove that their father was not exercising his ‘rights of custody’ when you removed them – i.e. did not visit them, provide for them financially in any way etc.

Yes, in exceptional circumstances, apparently, according to the Perez-Vera Explanatory Report to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction. This makes specific reference is made to this in Paragraph 110. It points out that where the parent applying for the return order no longer lives in the country from where the child was habitually resident prior to the abduction, ordering his/her return there could cause practical problems returning the child there e.g. where that parent has ended a posting in that country. It says: ‘The Convention did not accept a proposal to the effect that the return of the child should always be to the State of his habitual residence before its removal…. The Convention’s silence on this matter must therefore be understood as allowing the authorities of the State of refuge to return the child directly to the applicant, regardless of the latter’s present place of reference.’

No, some are strict in its application and some are lax. Most states whose legal systems are well established and respected generally have a good reputation now for respecting the underlying principles of the Convention.

No. Marital strife is not a defence under the Convention, nor is being homesick.

Yes, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction covers abductions between Israel and Australia, which have both ratified it.

It should not, as the case will be heard by a civil court, the appropriate family court, and the principle governing the plea are those of the Hague Convention, which are not related to religion at all.

In this case the Convention will not apply, and the ‘left-behind’ parent will have to bring an action for the child’s return in the country to which he/she has been abducted.