International Child Abduction & Relocation

According to a judgment by Haifa Family Court it should first establish whether the child has sufficient understanding and maturity to have his wishes taken into consideration in the first place. Part of this will be to see whether he can separate his needs and wishes from those of the abducting parent . If he can clearly differentiate between the two then this is a sign that he has his own opinions and has not been brainwashed. It can establish this from first-hand impressions gained from conversation with the minor in chambers, and/or from reports from professionals .

The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction does not mention any specific age regarding when a child’s wishes should be taken into account, leaving the court hearing the application to decide whether the minor has the requisite understanding and maturity for his/her viewpoint to count. Courts in many countries hearing abduction cases only give weight to the wishes of a child who is around 12 years of age.

In a child abduction case between an Ultra-Orthodox couple the mother, who was an Israeli citizen married to an American citizen, claimed that her husband effectively agreed to her and the minors remaining in Israel when he put them in a taxi to her parents’ home in Bnei Brak immediately on arrival at the airport, retained their passports and did not purchase return tickets for them. However, the Tel Aviv Family Court rejected her claims, and ordered the minors home. It said that the mother’s evidence was inconsistent and lacked credibility, and that she had failed to prove any of the specific defences. It held that she had not adapted well to life in the United States, and had ulterior motives when she accompanied her husband and their the 3 year old son on a special trip to Israel to participate in a special Lag B’Omer haircutting ceremony, only 10 days after the birth of a their second child. She had decided in advance to either remain in Israel with the children – or to pressurize her husband, who grew up in Israel until the age of 14, to live there instead of the United States, or to make sure he rented accommodation away from his parents in New York.

Firstly, when an alleged abductor uses violence as a defence in Hague Convention proceedings brought at a family court in Israel he/she must prove that the minors themselves are exposed to a grave risk of danger – physical or emotional. The family court in Israel would most probably appoint a suitably qualified professional to talk to the minors and report on the findings. When the children are very young the court will not usually choose to hear direct evidence from the minors themselves, for fear of any negative emotional effects it may have on them and because it is not usually helpful, given that the experts are better qualified to assess the situation.

Not if it is proved that the children were lawfully removed from the country in which they were living i.e. that there was the mutual consent of both parents . Where the removal was lawful – i.e. it is proved that both parents consented – then there is no wrongful removal, and no abduction, so that the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction does not apply. The parent wishing to return must apply for custody and relocation of the minors in Israel.

This can be claimed, but will be very difficult to prove.

Yes – even if it was gained without the other parent’s knowledge and consent, and is a breach of privacy under the Protection of Privacy Act of 1981.

Examples of “consent” could be a letter or note in which the left-behind parent agrees to the other living in Israel with the children. There is no need for the letter or note to mention express consent to the other parent being the custodian. Acquiescence can be expressed by inaction.