Yes – as Ashdod Family Court did a few years ago, responding positively to a Hague Convention plea by a father represented by Adv. Amihoud Borochov to return the minor to the U.K., from where he had abducted by his mother on 26.2.08. The court held that the father had proved that the child’s country of habitual residence prior to the abduction was the U.K., despite unsuccessful claims by the mother that it was Israel, and ordered the child’s return to Manchester, where he had been living prior to the abduction. “The cumulative effect ” of the mass of evidence brought by the father led the court to the “conclusion that the parties’ intention was to move and live in England for two years,” it said, and accordingly, the U.K. and not Israel, was the minor’s place of habitual residence.

Where there is a dispute between the parents as to their respective declared intentions concerning the move from Israel and whether the minor’s habitual residence has indeed changed or not, and the child is very young, the court will examine the evidence that emerges during the proceedings , and will apply a mixed test that takes into account its interpretations of the parents’ real shared intentions as to the move , and the “facts on the ground” about where the centre of the child’s life was immediately prior to the abduction.

In this case the family had relocated to Manchester following a lucrative job offer received by the father. Ten months after the actual move, the mother returned to Israel with the minor without the father’s knowledge or consent, while he was at work.