Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law   Bahrain through Cyprus

BAHRAIN

BAHRAIN-USA: (1989) (Return denied) (Non-Convention State) (To return would discourage nations from becoming signatories to the Convention) MOHSEN v MOHSEN. The family came to the United States from Bahrain for a visit. The mother informed the father that she wanted a divorce and did not allow the father to see the child. The father files for return under the ICARA. The mother moved to dismiss the petition because Bahrain is not a signatory of the Hague Convention. The father argues that ICARA stands alone from the Convention and therefore he has rights and the child should be returned. The court stated, "By providing rights only when a child was habitually resident in a contracting state, the convention creates an incentive for all nations to become signatories". The court also felt that if things were reversed, the mother would not be afforded the same rights in Bahrain. The court denied the father 's petition.

CANADA

CANADA-ARGENTINA: (1997) (Return ordered) MATTEO v PARODI. Child taken by the mother to Canada. Superior Court ordered return of child to Argentina. Court of Appeal upheld Superior Court's decision. CANADA-AUSTRALIA: (1988) (Return ordered) OTTENS v OTTENS, Mother took children to Australia. Mother is ordered to return the children to Canada. CANADA-AUSTRALIA: (1988) (Return ordered) Coward v Coward. Mother takes child to Canada. Court ordered the forced return of the child to Australia with the father. CANADA-AUSTRIA: (1997) HABSBURG v DONATH CANADA-FRANCE: (1985) (Return denied) CHARMASSON v CHARMASSON, Mother takes child to Canada. Father applies for return to France under the convention provisions of the Children's Law Reform Act. Court refused return because Canada was not a party to the Convention when the original custody determination was made. CANADA-IRELAND: (1998) (Return ordered) O'SULLIVAN v ANDERSON. Mother left the marital home with the child and went "underground". She was located in Canada. Father applies for return to Ireland. Child is ordered returned forthwith. CANADA-ISRAEL: (2001) (Return ordered) (Art. 13b) (Zone of War) CORNFELD v CORNFELD The father applies to the Canadian court for the return of his children. The court rules that the "evidence is clear that the children are being wrongfully retained in Ontario by the respondent and such retention constitutes a wrongful retention or removal within the meaning of article 3 of the Hague Convention". The mother's Art. 13b argument was also rejected by the court. Children ordered returned. CANADA-ISRAEL: (2001) Return ordered) (Art.13b) (Zone of War) (On Appeal) CORNFELD v CORNFELD. The mother seeks a stay of the order of Ferrier J. dated November 30, 2001 pending the disposition of her appeal. The court saw "no justification for granting the request that a temporary stay be granted pending any possible review of this decision by a panel of this court". The motion is therefore dismissed. CANADA-SCOTLAND: (1986) (Return denied) KILGOUR v KILGOUR. (In Scotland, The Child Abduction and Custody Act of 1985) (In Canada, The Children's law Reform Act of 1982) Mother takes the children to Scotland. Court rules against the return, stating that "I do not however consider that these actions or their consequences are controlled by the Convention in the present case, having regard to the date from which the Convention came to have the force of law in the United Kingdom" Children taken on or about January 1986. The Convention went in to affect between Canada and United Kingdom on August 1, 1986. CANADA-SCOTLAND: (1987) (Return ordered) VIOLA v VIOLA. Mother took the child to Scotland. The court ordered the child back to Canada. CANADA-SCOTLAND: (1993) (Return ordered) THOMPSON v THOMSON. Mother took child to Canada from Scotland. Child is ordered back to Scotland. The Court gave interim custody to the mother. (See Mr. Hilton's footnote) (See below) CANADA-SCOTLAND: (1993) (Return ordered) THOMSON v THOMSON. This is an appeal of the above case where the mother was ordered back to Scotland with the child. The appeal was dismissed with costs. Child is to be returned forthwith. The court indicated that the four month interim custody given to the mother was not justified. (See below) CANADA-SCOTLAND: (1994) (Return ordered) THOMSON v THOMSON. On appeal to the Supreme Court from the court of appeal for Manitoba. The appeal was dismissed and the child was ordered returned to Scotland immediately. This was the first case to be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada under the Hague Convention. CANADA-SOUTH AFRICA: (2000) (Undertakings) SONDERUP v TONDELLI. The mother took the child to South Africa. The father applied for her return under the convention. The High Court ordered the return. The mother appeals to the Constitutional Court of South Africa. The court upheld the appeal in part. They issued a new order with undertakings. The child is to be returned if the warrant for her arrest is lifted by the Court in Canada. There were other undertakings. Rather extensive undertakings that would allow the mother to return with the child without fear of arrest. CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM: (1987) (Return ordered) Father v Mother, Mother takes child to England. Lower court ordered child returned to Canada. He suspended the order by consent of terms, which were agreed to by both parties. Mother later appeals the order for return. Appeals Court dismissed the appeal. CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM: (1988) (Return ordered) MOTHER v DUNCAN. Father took child to England. Court ordered child returned to mother. This case involved the grandparents of the father as well as other family members. The court ordered them to disclose the whereabouts of the father and child. CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM: (1989) (Return ordered) HICKMAN v NEWELL. Father is ordered to return the child to mother in England. Father is ordered to pay court costs fixed at $1000.00 with stipulations. CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM: (1990) (Return ordered) Mother takes child to England. Rights of custody were challenged. Mother held that there could not be a breach of any rights of custody because the right of custody resides in the mother. Court held that right of custody does not have to be a person, it can be the mother, father, a court, institution, etc. Child ordered returned to Canada. CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM: (1992) (Return ordered on appeal) father v mother. The mother took the child to England. Father applies under the Hague Convention for return. The court refused to return the child. The Court determined that the removal was not wrongful. The Court also stated that to return the child would expose the child to "grave risk". Father appeals. Child was ordered returned on appeal. CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM: (1992) (ARTICLE 21 ACCESS) The mother had been allowed by the Canadian Court to return to England with the child, but had directed specific access to the father to take place in Canada. After returning to England, mother refused to comply with the access arrangements. English Court ordered that access should take place in England. The Appeals Court questioned what weight an access order form one State Party had on the other State Party. Questioned the enforceability of such orders. CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM: (1996) (Return denied) MILLER v LAHAISE. Mother takes children to Canada. After an interview with the older child, the court was satisfied that the child had reached an age of maturity and the child's wish to remain with her mother should be taken into consideration. The Court dismissed the father's application for return to England. (See footnotes by Mr. Hilton) CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM: (1997) (return denied on appeal and reconsideration of 13b by trial court) JOHNSON v FOWLER-WINNING, Mother takes child to England. The Mother admits to a wrongful removal. Child is ordered returned to Canada, but in the mean time the mother makes a personal appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court allowed her appeal. The Court of appeal returned the case to trial court to consider an article 13b defense. The Court found that the defense order 13b "has been established" and did not order the return of the child to Canada. (See Mr. Hiltons comments) CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM: (1997) (Return denied) RS v PA. Mother took the child and went into hiding. Mother was located in Canada. The father applied for return of the child to England. During trial, the father agreed that it was in the best interest not to return the child to England. The court found it appropriate not to return the child. Father however still wanted access. Judge orders mother not to leave jurisdiction of Court and retained jurisdiction until he could decide on access by the father. CANADA-USA: (1988) (Return ordered) GIBSON v EBEJER. Father takes child to Canada from the United States. The Canadian Court orders the child returned to the United States. CANADA-USA: (1988) (Return ordered on appeal) KELLY v WILLAMS, Mother takes children to Canada. The father appealed the decision of the Trial Court. The appeal was up held and the children were ordered returned to California. CANADA-USA: (1989) PARSONS v PARSONS-STYGER. Mother takes child to Canada. Trial court orders return with stipulations. Mother appeals to Ontario Court of Appeals. The appeal was dismissed. CANADA-USA: (1989) (Return ordered) HILL v HILL (Costs discussed, Children's law Reform Act, 1982), Father takes child to Canada from Oregon, USA. Court ordered the child returned to USA. CANADA-USA: (1991) (Return Ordered) DAVID S. v SAMIRA S. Mother takes the children from Canada to USA. Court finds that the removal from Canada was wrongful and that the habitual residence of the children is Canada. CANADA-USA: (1991) (Return ordered) BICKERTON v BICKERTON. The mother had the children in USA as part of a separation agreement. While the mother had the children, she filed for custody of the children. The father applied for their return to Canada under the Hague Treaty. The Court ordered the children be returned to Canada following the mother's time with the children according to the separation agreement. CANADA-USA: (1991) (Trial court reversed, remanded back for exceptions contained in 13b) DOQUETTE v TAHAN. The father refused to return the child as agreed following the summer vacation. The lower court stated that it was not bound to return the child to Canada. The mother appealed. The appeals court reversed the trial court and remanded it back to the trial court to determine the "applicability of the exceptions contained in Article 13b". CANADA-USA: (1992) (Return ordered) TAHAN v DUQUETTE. Court ordered child returned to Canada. Article 13b does not apply. Judge reflects on his lack of knowledge of the Hague Convention when the matter came before him the first time. CANADA-USA: (1992) (Return ordered) TAHAN v DUQUETTE. This case was back in the appeals court after being sent back to the trial court to " determine the applicability of the exceptions contained in article 13b". The appeals court affirmed the decision of the trial court CANADA-USA: (1992) TAHAN v DUQUETTE. The matter of council fees comes before the court. Court awards $7,500 for the defendant and against the plaintiff. CANADA-USA: (1996) (Return ordered) DS v VW Custody was given to the father, and access rights to the mother by the American courts. The father takes the children to Canada while the mother's motion's to modify and enforce her access rights were pending in the American courts. The mother files for the return of the children under the Convention. The Superior Court ordered the child returned to the US. The order was confirmed by the Court of Appeals. The father appealed the decisions. The appeal was dismissed. CANADA-USA: (1996) (Return ordered) DIAB v BENOIT, Mother took the children to Canada. Father applied for their return to USA. The Canadian Court ordered the return of the children after getting a clarifying order from the American judge. CANADA-USA: (1997) (Return Ordered) (Grave Risk) SINCLAIR v SINCLAIR The mother took the two youngest of her four children to the United States form Canada. The father applied under the Convention for their return. The mother stated that a return to Canada would place the children in an "intolerable situation" The court found that the mother did not "carry her burden of showing that return of the children to Canada would expose them to a grave risk" The district court ordered the children returned. The return was upheld on appeal to the Sixth Court of Appeals. CANADA-USA: (1998) (Return ordered) HAWKE v GAMBLE (Grave Risk, Right of Custody, Habitual Residence, Age and Maturity) Mother takes children to Canada from Texas, USA. Court orders the children returned to USA. CANADA-USA: (1998) (No decision) McCULLOUGH v McCULLOUGH. Mother takes children to USA. The children are placed in protective custody due to the fact that the mother may be a flight risk to Jordan. Father is given "physical custody" of the children pending a hearing on May 15, 1998. CANADA-USA: (2002) GAUDIN v REMIS. The father retained the children in Hawaii after a visit. The mother files for return under the Hague Convention. According to the father, the mother moves back to Hawaii. The father claims that the mother's application for return is moot due to the fact the she no longer resides in a foreign country. The case was remanded back to district court for evidentiary hearing on weather mother has in fact relocated back to Hawaii.

CYPRUS

CYPRUS-USA: (1996) (Return ordered) MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER (Central Authority) v FATHER. Father takes child to Cyprus. Mother asks for return under the Hague Convention. Child is ordered returned to the USA. CYPRUS-USA: (1996) (Return ordered) HADJITTOFI v HADJITTOFI. Mother came to the US with the father. While the father was in NY City for business, the mother went on to Rochester, NY to visit family. The mother contacted the father and informed him that she was not going to return with him to Cyprus. The father returned home and started procedures to have the children returned under the Hague Convention. The trial court ordered the return of the children to Cyprus.