International Child Abduction & Relocation

No. India is not bound by the convention.

If an Israeli parent who is posted overseas in a ‘non Hague Convention country’ finds that his/her child has been abducted to Israel, and he/she wants to continue working and living abroad, but also wants his/her child near, if not in his/her custody, the most immediate option is to petition the Supreme Court of Justice in Jerusalem for the minor’s return. The parent should request a special ‘Habeas Corpus’ Order for the minor’s return which the court has jurisdiction to grant under the Basic Law: Judiciary.

Another option for an Israeli parent in this situation is to apply to a family court in Israel for an order to return the minor. The Family Courts’ Act of 1995 empowers the family court to deal with abductions from ‘ Hague Convention countries’ and those which have not signed the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. This is so only where no petition or application has been made for the child’s return at the Supreme Court of Justice.

The disadvantages or dangers of this should be noted. Firstly, the process is slower. Secondly, if no previous legal proceedings have taken place but in response to the abduction plea filed at the family court the abducting parent files for custody there, the whole issue will have an Israeli ‘flavour’ . The court will decide on both issues, the emphasis will not be on the abduction itself, and the ‘child’s good’ will be paramount.

here are two options. The ‘first-aid’ option is to file a petition at the Supreme Court of Justice in Jerusalem for a Habeas Corpus Order for the return of the child abroad. This is the usual option where the abduction is ‘fresh’ and from a non-Hague Convention country.

The second option is to file for the child’s return at an Israeli family court but the process will be longer. The family court has jurisdiction under the Family Courts’ Act of 1995 to hear cases where the alleged abduction is from a country which is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction (1980) and also where the country is not a signatory.

It should be noted that if the second option is chosen and the abducting parent then starts files for custody at the same family court, and no hearings have taken place on this abroad, then it is likely that the two pleas, the abduction and the custody plea, will be heard together and the emphasis will be on the ‘child’s good.’

Unless the abductor returns the child voluntarily the only legal means to secure the child’s return is to start proceedings in the country in which the child is physically present, if it is known. The whole process is much more difficult where the child is in a non-convention country or “on the run” with the abductor.

Advice should be taken from the State Attorney’s Office in this connection.