International Child Abduction & Relocation

Yes! The minor’s age limit to file is 16. If your son is 15, then you can file Hague Convention proceedings at the Israeli Family Court for your minor son’s immediate return to Norway, his Country of habitual residence (see Family Case # 48050-04-21)

The Family Court will examine your claims, and will most likely, condition the children’s visit with your wife in Belgium, with guarantees to ensure their return to Israel, at the end of their visit. For instance, in a similar case, the Family Court in Haifa ruled that the mother will have to deposit 150,000 NIS in Court to ensure the minor’s return with her at the end of their visit abroad (30 days). She was also required to file a copy of their airfare ticket with the return date after 30 days and also sign an affidavit where she promises to return the minor to Israel (Case # 1660-07-23).

No! If your husband has had parental contact with your son, since his stay in rehab, then it has no importance or relevance to the Hague Convention proceedings. For example, on March 19^th, 2023, the Family Court in Tel Aviv (case # 19161-02-23) rejected the abducting father’s claim that the left behind mother did not exercise her custody rights, because she was in rehab. The Court found that since the minor daughters (there) went back to live with the mother and that the father negotiated their voluntary return with the mother, that consequently these facts refute the father’s claims.

The answer depends on the amount and quality of evidence you can provide the Court, regarding your refusal to allow your daughter’s stay in Israel.  You should file email/WhatsApp/phone communication between you and your wife which proves absolutely and unequivocally that there was no acquiescence on your part and/or that the mother manipulated you into thinking she is willing to return your son and come back with him to Belgium. For instance, the Family Court in Petach Tikva, (case # 29941-08-24) rejected an abducting mother’s defense claim that the father agreed to their minor child staying in Israel. The Court found that the reason that the father filed his plea for the return of the minor, only after 4 months, was because the mother tricked him until a certain point in time, to think that she was about to return with their child, to the US.

Yes! The minor’s wish is one of the defenses in the Hague Convention for not returning a minor to his/her Country of Habitual Residence. If the Family Court (who often meets with the minors aged more than 6,  in chambers) is convinced that the minor is mature enough to express an independent opinion, and that his wish not to be returned is genuine and not influenced by the abducting parent, then the Court may rule that the minor will not be returned and reject the plea. For instance, the Family Court, (case # 19298-08-23), ruled on December 24^th 2023, that the child’s wish such as “grave risk” may be the only reason for not returning a child to his country of habitual residence.

A great importance. If after meeting with the minor in chambers or receiving an expert’s report (usually a child psychologist or social worker), the Court’s impression, is that the child’s wish is independent, and that the child is mature enough to express it. For instance, The Family Court in the Krayot (Israel) has rejected a Hague Convention Plea of a father to return his minor son to the Ukraine. The Court considered the fact that the child’s wish is to stay in Israel and objected very strongly to being returned to the Ukraine because of the security situation there. The Court found that the child was mature enough to express his genuine wishes, that the minor’s objection was authentic and reasoned, and that it was appropriate to give it weight as it fulfils the exception to the Hague Convention (case # 19298-08-23).

No! the claim that in the past you have tried as a family to change your residence (within Australia) is not relevant and cannot be used as a defense argument in Hague convention proceedings. The Family Court will first try to establish the place of habitual residence of your minor children according to section 4 of the Convention. The Court will examine the life circumstances of your family, and where you lived. It is a pure fact test, where the court examines the parents’ intention, based on their past decisions and factual circumstances (Case # 29941-08-24).

A state of war in the minor’s country of habitual residence may constitute a defense argument, in Hague proceedings, for not returning the minor. The Court will consequently examine the current security situation in the Ukraine and decide whether the exceptions/defenses in the Hague Convention apply. For example, the Family Court rejected the plea of a father to return his minor son to the Ukraine, after examining the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website stating a Continuous travel warning in relation to the Ukraine/ The Family Court ruled that the war situation in the Ukraine where the minor is force to hide in bomb shelters, attend school on-line and where the child cannot get medical treatment or do sports, all constitute “grave risk” for the minor, if he is returned to the Ukraine (Case # 19298-08-23).

Yes! The Family Court is authorized by law to use his discretion, to ask the defendant (in this case -you) for further evidence in order to prove “Grave Risk” defense (i.e. that returning the minor may cause the minor “grave risk”), even after the proof stage. That being said, the Court may still order that you pay legal costs for the late filing (Case # 19298-08-23).

Not necessarily. You must act quickly and file Hague Convention proceedings, against your wife, for the immediate return of your child to Australia. If your wife can present oral or written proof (i.e. WhatsApp correspondence) that show that you agreed to your son stay in Israel, then the Court may rule against his return, given that your son has already been living in Israel for 6 months. The Family Court in Hadera rejected a Hague Convention plea of a father for the return of his minor daughter to Australia, because he filed his plea 10 months after the child has been in Israel. The Family Court found that the father’s lack of action, expresses agreement to his daughter staying in Israel, i.e. Acquiescence, which is a defense argument according to the Hague Convention, and ordered that the child will not be returned (Case # 30859-11-23).