Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law   Hong Kong through Libya

HONG KONG

HONG KONG-USA: (1999) (Return Ordered) (Undertakings) CROLL v CROLL. The mother takes the child to the United States. The father files under the Hague Treaty for the return. The court finds that the child was wrongfully removed form her habitual residence and orders the child returned. The parties agreed on "appropriate undertakings' that would be in effect until the parties appeared before the Hong Kong courts for a final judgment concerning custody and support.

HOLLAND: see THE NETHERLANDS

HUNGARY

HUNGARY-FRANCE: Central District Court of Budapest. See FRANCE-HUNGARY: HUNGARY-USA: (1993) (Return for visitation denied) VIRAGH v FOLDES. Mother has custody in Hungary, father has visitation. Father has filed over 50 complaints and appeals against the mother in Hungary. All were dismissed. The mother takes the children to the US to live with her new husband. The father applied for return of the children for visitation. The trial court ruled that the Convention does not mandate the return of children for visitation. The father appealed the decision. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's order, but remanded the action back to the trial court for consideration of visitation consistent with this opinion.

ICELAND

ICELAND-WALES-USA: (1995) (Return denied) (habitual residence) AMERICAN FATHER v ENGLISH MOTHER. The parents were living on a US navy base in Iceland. The mother took the children to England. A Michigan court had ordered the mother not to remove the children from the US Naval base. The father applies for their return to Michigan. The mother contends that the children were habitual residences of Iceland, a non-Hague country. The court ruled that Iceland was the habitual resident of the children and because Iceland was not a signatory of the Convention, the Convention did not apply. The father's application for return to Michigan was denied.

INDIA

INDIA-UNITED KINGDOM: (1996) (Habitual residence) This was before the court on appeal. Lower court had said that the habitual residence was England and Wales and ordered the child returned from India. The appeals court found for the father and determined the habitual residence was India.

IRAN

IRAN-USA: (2001) LONG v ARDESTANI. The mother appeals a decision of the lower court denying her motion to prohibit her former husband from traveling to Iran. The lower court decision is affirmed. NOTE FROM KRISTINE UHLMAN "the judge had first required that all 4 children travel to Iran - on appeal, the judge said that only if the children wanted to travel to Iran they could go - only 1 of the 4 children wanted to go to Iran (to see the sick grandmother) - the youngest child, age 9 - and the father took him, we held our breath - and then the dad returned after 2 weeks with the boy".

IRAQ

IRAQ-USA-UNITED KINGDOM: (1994) (Ordered that the child be taken into custody should the father and child set foot in England) US MOTHER v IRAQI FATHER. Father removes the child to Iraq. The California court had ordered that the child not be removed from CA without the permission of both parents or by leave of the court. Court ordered the father to return the child forthwith. Father agrees to come to England to discuss the future. Mother applies to have the child turned over to her when the father arrives in England. The question before the court was, could the court make such an order before the father had arrived in England? The court determined it had jurisdiction to do so under the Child Abduction and Custody Act of 1985 and thus the Hague Convention.

IRELAND

IRELAND-UNITED KINGDOM: (1997) (Habitual residence) This case is a question of habitual residence. Mother and father were not married. The mother is resident in England when she dies. The maternal Grandmother and Aunt take the child back to Ireland. The court rules that England is the habitual residence and the removal of the child was unlawful. IRELAND-USA: (1998) (Return ordered) (13b) Physical abuse) WALSH v WALSH. Mother flees with her lover and children to US. Father files for return under the Hague Treaty. Mother does not dispute the wrongful removal but relies on "grave risk" defense. With undertakings, the court returned the children to Ireland. IRELAND-USA: (1999) WALSH v WALSH. The court stayed its order to return the children to Ireland in order to determine the applicability of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The court, for reasons stated, denied the motion to dismiss. However, they stayed the order to return the children pending appeal.

ISRAEL

ISRAEL-ARGENTINA: (2001) (Return ordered) ALTHEIM v ALTHEIM. The father took his son to Argentina. The mother files for his return under the Convention. The court found that the habitual residence was Israel and ordered the return. Concerned that conditions might get worse in Israel, the court postponed the return for two months. Note by Wm. M. Hilton: Pursuant to the letter of 15 Mar 2002 from the State of Israel, Ministry of Justice, to Edwin Freedman, Attorney, the minor child was given over to the custody of the mother on 05 Dec 2001 and returned to Israel. ISRAEL-AUSTRALIA: (2002) (Return ordered by lower court, overturned on appeal) (Grave Risk) (War Zone) GENISH-GRANT v DIRECTOR-GENERAL DEPT of COMMUNITY SERVICES. This is an appeal by the mother against orders form the lower court ordering the return of the children to Israel. The appeal was allowed. ISRAEL-CANADA: (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. ISRAEL-CANADA: (2001) Return ordered) (Art.13b) (Zone of War) (OnAppeal) 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. ISRAEL-FRANCE: (1992) (Return ordered) TOURNAL v MECHOULAM. Mother takes child to Israel. Court orders the child returned to France, but places a stay for 7 days to allow the mother to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court up held the District courts order and dismissed the mother's application for a further stay. ISRAEL-FRANCE: (2002) (Return ordered) BEN SAID v LEBOEUF The father took five of his six children to France in violation of a temporary custody order. The court found that Israel was the habitual residence of the children and that a "grave risk" defiance fails. "Documents have been produced in hearings that the political situation in Israel has always been tense since the creation of that State in 1948" The court "orders the immediate return of the five children to the residence of their mother in Israel". ISRAEL-GERMANY: (2001) (Return Ordered) (Habitual Residence) WATKINS v WATKINS. Both parents are serving in the U.S. Military. The mother takes the child to Germany while she fulfills her military obligation. She refuses to return the child. The father, stationed in Israel applies for the child's return to Israel. After determining that the habitual residence of the child is Israel the court ordered the return. The court also ordered the bailiff to use force if necessary to enforce his order. ISRAEL-NORWAY: (1998) (Return denied) (Age of maturity) (In Utero) EL-HATEEB v EL-HATEEB. This case involves the mother retaining the four children in Norway. The father files for their return to Israel. The court rules that the two oldest children, 14 and10, indicated they did not want to return to their father. The court felt it would do harm to separate the youngest children from their mother. W. M. Hilton: There was no showing that the Israeli courts could not or would not provide the protection that the mother and the children may have needed and there was no showing that, given the facts of the case, the Israeli courts would not reach a similar conclusion, that is, that the children would be better off with the mother and that suitable protective orders could be made by the Israeli courts. ISRAEL-SWEDEN: (2001) (Return Ordered) I.N. v A.S. The father took the child from Sweden to Israel. The mother files for the return. The court ordered the return. Case was handled in six days. (See comments by Mr. Hilton) ISRAEL-UNITED KINGDOM: (1990) (Return ordered on appeal) (Return to a non-Hague Convention Country) Mother asks for the return of the child to Israel. Israel was not a signatory of the Hague Convention. The English court gave interim control and care to the father and ordered the mother not to remove the child from the courts jurisdiction. The mother appeals the decision. The mother's appeal was allowed. The child was ordered returned to Israel. This case relied on practices which the Australian courts have adopted. ISRAEL-UNITED KINGDOM: (1993) (Return ordered) The mother and father went to England on scholarships, both are scientists. The mother refused to return the children after their time in England was over. The father applied for their return. The court ordered the children returned to Israel. The decision was up held on appeal. ISRAEL-UNITED KINGDOM: (1994) (Return of the children affirmed) (Undertakings) The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the lower court that had ordered the return of children to Israel. The court stated that "Undertakings attached to an order for return of a child under the Convention were designed to protect the child for the limited period before the foreign court took over and were not to be used to fetter or delay the enforcement of the decision to return the child" ISRAEL-UNITED KINGDOM: (1996) (Return denied on appeal) (Acquiescence) H. v H. The mother removed the children to England. The lower court ordered the return of the children to Israel. The appeals court overturned the lower court finding that the father did in fact acquiescence. (See Mr. Hiltons footnotes) ISRAEL-UNITED KINGDOM: (1997) H. v H. the House of lords reversed the decision of the appeals court and ordered the immediate return of the children to Israel. ISRAEL-UNITED KINGDOM: (2002) (Return Ordered)(Grave Risk) (Return to a country at war) (Intolerable Situation) "S" A Child. This case is on appeal from the High Court of Justice Family Division. The mother had taken the child from Israel. The family court ordered the return of the child to Israel. The mother claims grave risk to herself and the baby if they are returned to Israel due to the war like conditions. Also the child would suffer without the "day to day care of the defendant". The appeal was denied. ISRAEL-USA: (1992) (Return ordered) COHEN v COHEN. The mother removed the child to Israel. The father applied for the return under the Hague Convention. The court ruled that there was a wrongful removal and that the habitual residence was the US. The child was ordered returned. ISRAEL- USA: (1992) (Return denied) COHEN v COHEN. (Habitual Residence) The father seeks the return of the children to Israel. The mother feels that the residence of the children is the United States and feels that any custody decisions should be made in the US. The father took the children to Israel for a visit (as claimed by the mother). The father failed to return the children. The mother went to Israel and left with the children for the US. The father applies for their return. The court ruled the habitual residence was the US and denied the petition for return. (See Mr. Hilton's footnotes) ISRAEL-USA: (1992) (Motion to honor the foreign custody decree denied) NADLER v NADLER. The court ruled that the mother's conduct of removing the children from Israel was not wrongful or reprehensible. The court denied the father's motion to enforce the foreign custody order, ruling that this court had jurisdiction. The court discussed attorney's fees and costs associated with locating the children. (This case was argued by Mr. Hilton and Mr. Rothschild for the mother). ISRAEL-USA: (1993) (Return ordered) ISSAK v ISSAK. The mother takes children to Israel. The father requests the return of the children under the Hague Convention. The children are ordered returned to New York, USA. Court costs of $16,098 were awarded to the father. ISRAEL-USA: (1993) (Return denied on appeal) (Acquiescence) LEIBOVITZ v LEIBOVITZ. While the father was on a visit to Israel, the mother took the child to Israel without the father's knowledge. When the father learned of the arrival he proceeded to protect his rights in the Israeli courts. The father applied for the return of the child to California, USA. The District Court granted the father's request. The mother appealed. The appeals court held that the father actions constituted "acquiescence" to the removal by not applying the Hague Convention for ten months. (See Mr. Hilton's footnotes) ISRAEL-USA: (1993-95) (Return ordered on appeal) (One year filing deadline) GUNSBURG v E. GREENWALD and Dr. A. GREENWALD. After failing to appear before the court in New York several times, the court issued Warrant of Arrest against the mother. The custody of the child was given to the father. The father learned that the mother and child had gone to Israel. The father applied in Israel for the child's return pursuant to the Hague Convention Law (1991-5751) which gives validity to the Hague Convention in Israel. The District court denied the fathers petition to return the child. The father appeals. The child is ordered returned to New York, USA. ISRAEL-USA: (1996) (Return denied) (Acquiescence) District Attorney. County of Santa barbara (REUVENI) v REUVENI, Neither parent denied that the habitual residence was Israel. The mother took the child to the US with out the father's knowledge. The father applied under the Hague Treaty for return of the child. In denying the return, the court ruled that a letter sent by the father, to the mother, did "constitute acquiescence" (The mother was represented by Mr. Hilton) ISRAEL-USA: (1996) (Return ordered) FREIER v FREIER. Mother took the child to Michigan, USA for annual visit with her parents. The mother informed the father that she was not returning to Israel. Father files for return of the child under the Hague Convention. The court ordered the child returned to Israel. ISRAEL-USA: (1997) (Attorneys fees and costs) FREIER v FREIER. The court awards fees and costs in the amount of $15,727.07 to Plaintiff ISRAEL-USA: (1997) (Return ordered) BITON v BITON. The mother takes the child to Israel. The father applies for return to California, USA. The court ordered the return of the child. ISRAEL-USA: (1998) (Return Denied) (Habitual residence) (Age of maturity) ISAAC v RICE. The father took the children to Israel and hid them from the mother for eleven years. The father's mother intervened, after eleven years, and told the mother that the father was in Israel and arranged for the mother to talk with her children by phone. The mother went to Israel and brought the son back to the US. The father applied for his return, the petition for return was denied. The court found that the habitual residence was the US and the child had reached an age of maturity. ISRAEL-USA: (1998) (Attorneys fees and costs) DISTLER v DISTLER. This case deals with attorney's fees and costs relating to the courts order returning the children to the State of Israel. The court granted the application for costs with a few modifications. ISRAEL-USA: (1998) (Return denied) (Habitual residence) MOZES v MOZES. The Court ruled that the children were habitual residences of the United States and do not have to be returned to Israel. The mother had taken the children to the US for an extended stay with the father's permission. ISRAEL-USA: (1998) (Return denied) (Habitual residence) (Age of maturity) ISAAC v RICE. The father took the children to Israel and hid them from the mother for eleven years. The father's mother intervened, after eleven years, and told the mother that the father was in Israel and arranged for the mother to talk with her children by phone. The mother went to Israel and brought the son back to the US. The father applied for his return, the petition for return was denied. The court found that the habitual residence was the US and the child had reached an age of maturity. ISRAEL-USA: (1998) (Return denied) TOREN v TOREN, The father filed for the return of the children from Massachusetts, USA. The court rules that the children were not habitual residences of Israel at the time of their alleged retention. Therefore the Convention and ICARA do not apply. ISRAEL-USA: (1998) (Return denied) (wrongful retention) SHALIT v COPPE-SHALIT. Father filed for return of child to Israel. The child had gone to live in Israel for three years with both parties' approval. At the end of three years, the child came to the US for a visit. The mother refused to return the child to Israel and the father claimed the mother is retaining the child in the US in violation of the Convention. The court found that Israel was the child's habitual residence. The court further ruled that because the mother had custody rights in Alaska before the alleged retention, the retention was not wrongful. The fathers motion failed, child not ordered returned. (See Mr. Hiltons footnotes) ISRAEL-USA: (1999) (Return denied, Lower court decision affirmed) SHALIT v COOPE-SHALIT. The case was appealed by the father. The appeals court found that the father failed to establish that the mother's retention of the child was wrongful. The appeal was denied. ISRAEL-USA: (2001) (Returned denied) BEN-EVEN v TAL. The child was taken from Israel to the United States. The father "requests that the Court determine that the minor child of the parties, was wrongfully removed from the country of Israel and is being wrongfully retained in the United States by Respondent". The court ruled that the place of habitual residence of the child is the United States. The child's trip to and stay in Israel in the company of her mother for a period of eight months was temporary and contingent upon adjustment of the child to life in that country. That adjustment never occurred. Israel did not supplant the United States as the child's place of habitual residence. Respondent has the right to determine place of residence of the child under the Decree of Divorce and amendments thereto. Her exercise of that right is consistent with both California and Nevada law. There has been no wrongful removal under the principles of the Hague Convention. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is Denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Return of Child to Petitioner (#1) is Denied. ISRAEL-USA: (2001) MOZES v MOZES. The lower court denied the return of the children to Israel. On appeal, the decision of the lower court was reversed and remanded back to the lower court to determine if there was a grave risk to the children if returned to Israel. If not they must be returned. The court determined that the habitual residence of the children is Israel and that the father was exercising his rights of custody when the children were retained in the USA. ISRAEL-USA: (2001) (remanded back to district court) SILVERMAN v SILVERMAN Because the Hague issue has not been addressed, we believe the appropriate course of action is to remand the matter to the district court to consider whether the Silverman children were wrongfully removed from Israel. ISRAEL-USA: (2002) SILVERMAN v SILVERMAN. The father applies for the return of his children under the Convention. This case was remanded back to the District court to address the father's contention that the children should be returned to Israel. The court is to determine if the children were wrongfully removed. The mother asks for a jury trial. The motion is denied. A date is set to determine if the children were wrongfully removed from Israel or retained in the US. ISRAEL-USA: (2002) (Return Denied) (Habitual Residence) (Grave Risk) SILVERMAN v SILVERMAN. The court found that the district court erred in refusing the return based on "grave risk) the children were ordered returned to Israel for a determination of custody issues.

ITALY

ITALY-ENGLAND: (1999) (Return ordered) Bochford v Bochford The mother removed the child from England to Italy. The court ruled that the habitual residence of the child was England and that the removal was unlawful. The court ordered the child returned. ITALY-UNITED KINGDOM: (1996) (Return denied while an "appraisal is run") COLLI v COLLI. The court did not order the children returned, but rather ordered an appraisal to better understand the relationship between the mother and father. This "runs contra to the express purpose of the Convention, which is to return a child to his or her 'habitual residence' (clearly the UK here) and let the courts of the 'habitual residence' hear evidence on the merits of the case" (See Mr. Hilton's footnotes) ITALY-UNITED KINGDOM: (1999) (Article 15) CANETTI v THORPE. The Father applies to the English court for the return of the child from England. The English court issued an order asking the Italian court to provide an article 15 declaration attesting to weather the minor child is being wrongfully retained out of the Italian jurisdiction. The Italian court declared that the child was not wrongfully retained out of the Italian jurisdiction pursuant to article 3 of the Convention. ITALY-UNITED KINGDOM: (1999) (Article 15) (On appeal) CANETTI v THORPE.The Italian court declared that the child was not wrongfully retained out of the Italian jurisdiction pursuant to article 3 of the Convention. The father appeals the decision of the court. The court "rejects the appeal filed by Mr. Mirko Canetti against the decree of the Milan Juvenile Court dated March 24, 1999". ITALY-USA: (1996) (Return denied) AUSTIN v SORRENTINO. The mother took the child to Italy without the fathers consent. The court ruled that the habitual residence of the child was the US. However they also ruled that the father was not exercising his custodial rights at the time of the removal, therefore it was not a wrongful removal under the Convention. ITALY-USA: (1997) (Return ordered) CIOTOLA v FIOCCA The mother took the child to Ohio, USA for a visit (their third). The mother did not return the child to Italy as the father thought she would. The father applies for the child's return under the Hague treaty. The Magistrate determined that the habitual residence was Italy and that the father was exercising his custodial rights at the time removal and retention. The magistrate also found that there was no risk to the child to be returned to Italy. The mother appeals, the appeals court rejects the appeal and the child is ordered returned to Italy. ITALY-USA: (2000) (Return Ordered) (Undertakings) TABACCHI v HARISON. The mother took the child to the United States after several years of fighting, cussing, and alleged physical abuse at the hands of the father. The father applied for the child's return under the Convention. The District court ruled that the habitual residence was Italy and that there was no grounds for a "grave risk" defense. The court indicated that the Italian court had given the Mother temporary custody and saw no reason why the Italian court could not protect the mother and child form any potential harm. The child was ordered return with undertakings. ITALY-USA: (2002) (Return Ordered) DORFMAN v DORFMAN The mother takes the children to Italy. The father applies for their return. The court ruled that the children were wrongfully removed and that the father was exercising his rights of custody at the time of removal. ITALY-USA: (2002) (Return ordered) CONCEDDA v CAVIGLIA. The mother removed the child from Italy to the United States. The father applies for the return under the Convention. The Court ruled that Italy was the habitual residence and that the removal was wrongful under Art. 3 of the Convention. The court requested that "the Italian Judicial authority provide a decision or other determination whether the removal of the child on September 28, 2000 was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. In a response dated June 21, 2002, the Italian authority stated that the abduction of Francisco Concedda by his mother was wrongful under Article 3. Accordingly, this court must order the return of the child".

LEBANON

LEBANON-USA: (1986) (Jurisdiction in courts of Lebanon) MALAK v MALAK. The mother took the children from the United Arab Emirates to the United States with out the fathers consent. The trial court denied the fathers motion to enforce a child custody decree issued by the Shari'a Sunnit Court, Beirut, Lebanon. The trial court also determined that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the subject of child custody. The husband was allowed to take the children to UAE. The father did not return the children as promised. On appeal, the court found that the lower court erred by not enforcing the orders of the Shari'a Sunnit Court. "The trial court's order denying recognition and enforcement of the child custody decrees of the Shari'a Sunnit Court, Beirut, Lebanon, is reversed with direction that an order be entered declaring that said decrees are entitled to recognition and enforcement in the courts of this state in accordance with the provisions of section 5162 of the Civil Code".

LIBYA

LIBYA-USA: MAZO v Elmergaw, see EGYPT-USA